login
Header Space

 
 

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

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Michael Buesch <mb@...>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...>, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@...>, David Brownell <david-b@...>, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...>, <netdev@...>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...>, <linux-usb@...>, <linux-wireless@...>, <video4linux-list@...>, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...>, <lm-sensors@...>
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 10:27 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 Holschuh..., (Sun Mar 16, 2:43 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, Andrew Morton, (Thu Mar 20, 10:27 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh..., (Wed Mar 26, 12:17 pm)
speck-geostationary