[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, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:53:11 +0100 Jean Delvare <> wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:17:23 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > in_atomic() is for core kernel use only. (...)
> >
> > Then why is it made available to drivers through <linux/hardirq.h>?
> Because we suck.
> > If
> > it's such a dangerous macro to call from drivers, it shouldn't be made
> > available, or at the very least there should be a big fat warning in
> > <linux/hardirq.h> that drivers aren't supposed to use it. This would
> > have avoided the 23 uses cases in drivers we have right now.
> True.

There's also a section about in_atomic() in the Linux Device Drivers
(3rd ed.) book which may have contributed to the confusion. On p. 198:

A function related to in_interrupt() is in_atomic(). Its
return value is nonzero whenever scheduling is not allowed;
this includes hardware and software interrupt contexts as well
as any time when a spinlock is held. In the latter case,
current may be valid, but access to user space is forbidden,
since it can cause scheduling to happen. Whenever you are
using in_interrupt(), you should really consider whether
in_atomic() is what you actually mean. Both functions are
declared in <asm/hardirq.h>.

Alan Stern

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 19:09    [W:0.054 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site