lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: BUG or not? GFP_KERNEL with interrupts disabled.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> Let's codify this "in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()" test into a macro
> that everyone can use to test sleepability, ok?

Well, I really don't want people to act dynamically differently depending
on whether they can sleep or not. That makes static sanity-testing
impossible. So I really think that the only really valid use of the above
is on one single place: might_sleep().

Which right now doesn't do the "irqs_disabled()" test, but otherwise looks
good. So the code should really just say

if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)
might_sleep();

and might_sleep() should be updated.

Anybody want to try that and see whether things break horribly?

Linus

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.588 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site