Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Apr 2005 03:22:20 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.12-rc2 in_atomic() picks up preempt_disable() |
| |
Keith Owens <kaos@sgi.com> wrote: > > 2.6.12-rc2, with CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG. The > in_atomic() macro thinks that preempt_disable() indicates an atomic > region so calls to __might_sleep() result in a stack trace. > preempt_count() returns 1, no soft or hard irqs are running and no > spinlocks are held. It looks like there is no way to distinguish > between the use of preempt_disable() in the lock functions (atomic) and > preempt_disable() outside the lock functions (do nothing that might > migrate me).
Is this new behaviour?
It sounds correct to me:
preempt_disable(); do_something_which_might_sleep(); preempt_enable();
Is buggy? - 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/
| |