linux-kernel - use of preempt_count instead of in

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080316184349.GA28543@khazad-dum.debian.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:43:49 -0300
From:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Subject: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

David, Richard,

Is the use of "if (preempt_count())" to know when to defer led gpio work to
a workqueue needed?  Shouldn't "if (in_atomic())" be enough?

I have found no other such uses of preempt_count() anywhere in kernel code,
while in_atomic() is used for that sort of heuristic in various places.

Relevant git commit id is: 00852279af5ad26956bc7f4d0e86fdb40192e542
"leds: Teach leds-gpio to handle timer-unsafe GPIOs".   It made mainline in
2.6.23-rc1.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/