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: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...>, Michael Buesch <mb@...>, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@...>, David Brownell <david-b@...>, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...>
Date: Friday, March 21, 2008 - 5:53 am

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:17:23 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

Then why is it made available to drivers through <linux/hardirq.h>? If
it's such a dangerous macro to call from drivers, it shouldn't be made
available, or at the very least there should be a big fat warning in
<linux/hardirq.h> that drivers aren't supposed to use it. This would
have avoided the 23 uses cases in drivers we have right now.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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, Jean Delvare, (Fri Mar 21, 5:53 am)
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