[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Stefan Richter wrote:
> and eth1394 to deal with temporary lack of of tlabels. Alas I just
> recently received a report that eth1394's workaround is unsuccessful on
> non-preemptible uniprocessor kernels. I suspect the same issue exists

Which, I think, is exactly the config where in_atomic() can't be used to
mean "in_scheduleable_context()" ?

"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 13:39    [W:0.081 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site