[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E37F86.2080804@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:27:34 +0100
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
video4linux-list@...hat.com, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists