[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E4EDB5.2080205@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:29:57 +0100
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
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:
>>> and eth1394 to deal with temporary lack of of tlabels. Alas I just
>>> recently received a report that eth1394's workaround is unsuccessful
>>> on non-preemptible uniprocessor kernels.
> (I haven't started working on a fix, or opened a bugzilla
> ticket for it yet. The reporter currently switched his kernel to
> PREEMPT which is not affected.)
now logged as http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10306
> The failure in the workaround is *not* about the in_atomic() being the
> wrong question asked in hpsb_get_tlabel() --- no, ieee1394's in_atomic()
> abuse works just fine even on UP PREEMPT_NONE. Instead, the failure is
> about kthreads not being scheduled in the way that I thought they would.
--
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