Joe Perches cb426e99ff checkpatch: check for uncommented waitqueue_active()
Linus sayeth:

: Pretty much every single time people use this "if
: (waitqueue_active())" model, it tends to be a bug, because it means
: that there is zero serialization with people who are just about to go
: to sleep. It's fundamentally racy against all the "wait_event()" loops
: that carefully do memory barriers between testing conditions and going
: to sleep, because the memory barriers now don't exist on the waking
: side.
:
: So I'm making a new rule: if you use waitqueue_active(), I want an
: explanation for why it's not racy with the waiter. A big comment about
: the memory ordering, or about higher-level locks that are held by the
: caller, or something.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-06-25 17:00:41 -07:00
..
2015-05-28 18:25:19 -07:00
2014-04-03 16:20:52 -07:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2014-08-08 15:57:32 -07:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2011-08-31 16:12:17 +02:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2012-06-27 12:44:29 -07:00
2014-12-20 00:01:12 +01:00
2015-02-17 14:34:53 -08:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00
2014-09-01 11:18:25 +02:00
2015-04-17 09:03:56 -04:00
2014-08-20 16:03:45 +02:00