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

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:34:49 -0600
corbet@xxxxxxx (Jonathan Corbet) wrote:

> Discourage people from using in_atomic()
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> index 4982998..3d196cb 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hardirq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@
>  #define in_softirq()		(softirq_count())
>  #define in_interrupt()		(irq_count())
>  
> +/*
> + * Are we running in atomic context?  WARNING: this macro cannot
> + * always detect atomic context and should not be used to determine
> + * whether sleeping is possible.  Do not use it in driver code.
> + */
>  #define in_atomic()		((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != 0)

It'd be better if the comment were to describe _why_ in_atomic() is
unreliable.  ie: "does not account for held spinlocks on non-preemptible
kernels".

--
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/