[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803212120.59067.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:20:58 +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 21:16:48 Michael Buesch wrote:
> 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.
and
transmit_data_func()
{
if (!oops_in_progress) {
schedule_transmission_for_later();
} else {
/* We crash anyway, so we don't care about
* possible deadlocks from memory alloc sleeps
* or whatever. */
close_eyes_and_transmit_it_now();
}
}
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists