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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 7:27 pm

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:36:51 +0100 Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:


Yup.  non-preemptible kernels avoid the inc/dec of
current_thread_info->preempt_count on spin_lock/spin_unlock


Yup.  99.99% of kernel code manages to do this...
--
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 H ..., (Sun Mar 16, 11:43 am)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Thu Mar 20, 3:56 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Thu Mar 20, 5:36 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Thu Mar 20, 7:10 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Andrew Morton, (Thu Mar 20, 7:27 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Fri Mar 21, 5:37 am)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Wed Mar 26, 9:17 am)