On Friday 27 July 2007 16:12, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:43:59 +0200
Michael Buesch [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Sure, but why is the locking interruptible rather than plain old
mutex_lock()?

Hm, well. We hold this mutex for several seconds, as writing takes
this long. So I simply thought it was worth allowing the waiter
to interrupt here. If you say that's not an issue, I'll be happy
to use mutex_lock() and reduce code complexity in this area.

So..  is that what the _interruptible() is for?  To allow an impatient user to ^c
a read?

If so, that sounds reasonable.  It's worth a comment explaining these decisions
to future readers, because it is hard to work out this sort of thinking just
from the bare C code.

I think most of sysfs ->show() and ->store() implementations use
_interruptible() variant to allow user to interrupt and return early.

-- 
Dmitry