Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:37:27 +1100 | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: in_atomic doesn't count local_irq_disable? |
| |
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:03:36 +0530 Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> do_page_fault avoids calling this down_read if we are "in_atomic()" > Isn't in_atomic supposed to count IRQs disabled case? If not > then shouldn't do_page_fault also check for irqs_disabled() > before calling down_read()?
in_atomic() doesn't actually return true if irqs are disabled.
hence "(in_atomic() || irqs_disabled())" in __might_sleep.
do_page_fault should have the same test...
Thanks, Rusty. -- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |