Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:29:57 +0100 | From | Stefan Richter <> | Subject | Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c |
| |
I 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 haven't started working on a fix, or opened a bugzilla > ticket for it yet. The reporter currently switched his kernel to > PREEMPT which is not affected.)
now logged as http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10306
> The failure in the workaround is *not* about the in_atomic() being the > wrong question asked in hpsb_get_tlabel() --- no, ieee1394's in_atomic() > abuse works just fine even on UP PREEMPT_NONE. Instead, the failure is > about kthreads not being scheduled in the way that I thought they would. -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- --== =-==- http://arcgraph.de/sr/
|  |