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]

Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:16:48 +0100
From:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	stern@...land.harvard.edu, hmh@....eng.br, david-b@...bell.net,
	rpurdie@...ys.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, video4linux-list@...hat.com,
	stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, lm-sensors@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

On Friday 21 March 2008 20:59:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
> They could of course be switched to using
> kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC)+memcpy()+schedule_task().  That's rather slow, but this
> is not a performance-sensitive area.  But more seriously, this could lead
> to messages getting lost from a dying machine.

Well, IMO drivers that need to sleep to transmit some data (to whatever,
the screen or something) are not useful for debugging a crashing kernel anyway.
Or how high is the possibility that it'd survive the actual sleep in the
memory allocation? I'd say almost zero.
So that schedule_task() is not that bad.

-- 
Greetings Michael.
--
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/