[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 Friday 21 March 2008 20:59:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
> They could of course be switched to using
> kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC)+memcpy()+schedule_task(). That's rather slow, but this
> is not a performance-sensitive area. But more seriously, this could lead
> to messages getting lost from a dying machine.

Well, IMO drivers that need to sleep to transmit some data (to whatever,
the screen or something) are not useful for debugging a crashing kernel anyway.
Or how high is the possibility that it'd survive the actual sleep in the
memory allocation? I'd say almost zero.
So that schedule_task() is not that bad.

Greetings Michael.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 21:21    [W:0.070 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site