linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200803161246.23909.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:46:23 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc:	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

On Sunday 16 March 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 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?

At this point, I don't know of any such reason.

I remember hunting for the right heuristic, and settling on
that one for reasons that I can't recall now.  They may even
be no longer applicable.
--
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/