On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] wrote:
Why not using the more standard :
prepare_to_wait(sk_sleep(sk), &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
and
finish_wait(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
Thanks for your comments. The difference is that prepare_to_wait
inside loop introduces extra "list_empty" judgement than original
patch. But personally I prefer the newer version too:
Signed-off-by: Hong Zhiguo <redacted>
---
drivers/net/macvtap.c | 8 +++-----
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/macvtap.c b/drivers/net/macvtap.c
index 2ee56de..0737bd4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/macvtap.c
+++ b/drivers/net/macvtap.c
@@ -847,13 +847,12 @@ static ssize_t macvtap_do_read(struct
macvtap_queue *q, struct kiocb *iocb,
const struct iovec *iv, unsigned long len,
int noblock)
{
- DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
+ DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
struct sk_buff *skb;
ssize_t ret = 0;
- add_wait_queue(sk_sleep(&q->sk), &wait);
while (len) {
- current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
+ prepare_to_wait(sk_sleep(&q->sk), &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
/* Read frames from the queue */
skb = skb_dequeue(&q->sk.sk_receive_queue);@@ -875,8 +874,7 @@ static ssize_t macvtap_do_read(struct
macvtap_queue *q, struct kiocb *iocb,
break;
}
- current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
- remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(&q->sk), &wait);
+ finish_wait(sk_sleep(&q->sk), &wait);
return ret;
}
--
1.7.4.1