Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

[Stefan Richter]

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
-=====-==--- --== =-=-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/