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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0803261027580.4969-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
cc:	rpurdie@...ys.net, <gitster@...ox.com>, <corbet@....net>,
	<mingo@...e.hu>, <mb@...sch.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<khali@...ux-fr.org>, <hmh@....eng.br>, <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, David Brownell wrote:

> I _almost_ hate bringing this lovely flamage back onto $SUBJECT ... but
> what's the resolution for the leds-gpio.c issue?  I've not seen a merge
> notice for the patch I submitted a week ago now:
> 
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120597839009399&w=2
> 
> Just a "leaning..." comment:
> 
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120606104619198&w=2
> 
> Seems to me that by now there ought to be resolution on at least
> one of the issues brought up on this thread.  :)

Is it reasonable to have two version of that subroutine: one meant to 
be called in a sleepable context and the other to be called when 
sleeping isn't allowed?

Alan Stern

--
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/