Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@...>
Cc: Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Sunday, March 16, 2008 - 3:46 pm

On Sunday 16 March 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

At this point, I don't know of any such reason.

I remember hunting for the right heuristic, and settling on
that one for reasons that I can't recall now.  They may even
be no longer applicable.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Sun Mar 16, 2:43 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, David Brownell, (Sun Mar 16, 3:46 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Thu Mar 20, 6:56 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Thu Mar 20, 10:10 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Thu Mar 20, 8:36 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Fri Mar 21, 8:37 am)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Wed Mar 26, 12:17 pm)