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: Monday, March 24, 2008 - 12:42 pm

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:34:49 -0600
corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) wrote:


It'd be better if the comment were to describe _why_ in_atomic() is
unreliable.  ie: "does not account for held spinlocks on non-preemptible
kernels".

--
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, Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Fri Mar 21, 5:37 am)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Andrew Morton, (Mon Mar 24, 12:42 pm)
Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c, Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Wed Mar 26, 9:17 am)