[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [22]   [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:
>>> 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

> 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
-=====-==--- --== =-==-

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-22 12:33    [W:0.056 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site