[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
I wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> ./drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_transactions.c
>> Possibly buggy: deadlockable
> That's in hpsb_get_tlabel(), an exported symbol of the ieee1394 core.
> The in_atomic() there didn't cause problems yet and is unlikely to do so
> in the future, because there are no plans for substantial changes to the
> whole drivers/ieee1394/ anymore (because of drivers/firewire/).
> Nevertheless I shall look into replacing the in_atomic() by in_softirq()
> or something like that.

Or extend the API to have separate calls for callers which can sleep and
callers which can't. But that may be thwarted by deep call chains.

> Touching this legacy code is dangerous though.
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- --== =-=-=

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 10:31    [W:0.109 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site