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: Greg KH <greg@...>, <heiko.carstens@...>, <stern@...>, <hmh@...>, <david-b@...>, <rpurdie@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <mingo@...>, <geert@...>, <netdev@...>, <schwidefsky@...>, <linux-usb@...>, <linux-wireless@...>, <video4linux-list@...>, <stefanr@...>, <lm-sensors@...>
Date: Friday, March 21, 2008 - 4:16 pm

On Friday 21 March 2008 20:59:50 Andrew Morton wrote:

Well, IMO drivers that need to sleep to transmit some data (to whatever,
the screen or something) are not useful for debugging a crashing kernel anyway.
Or how high is the possibility that it'd survive the actual sleep in the
memory allocation? I'd say almost zero.
So that schedule_task() is not that bad.

-- 
Greetings Michael.
--
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, Michael Buesch, (Fri Mar 21, 4:16 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