Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

quoted text
> 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".

But then...why would anybody have a reason to read the upcoming LWN
article on the subject?  

OK, how's this?

jon

--

Discourage people from inappropriately using in_atomic()

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h
index 4982998..63a7782 100644
--- a/include/linux/hardirq.h
+++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h
@@ -72,6 +72,13 @@
 #define in_softirq()		(softirq_count())
 #define in_interrupt()		(irq_count())
 
+/*
+ * Are we running in atomic context?  WARNING: this macro cannot
+ * always detect atomic context; in particular, it cannot know about
+ * held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels.  Thus it should not be
+ * used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible.
+ * Do not use in_atomic() in driver code.
+ */
 #define in_atomic()		((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != 0)
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/