[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110120185617.GI6335@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:56:17 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Uwe Kleine-K??nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:29:15PM +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
> I really don't like the fact that people are doing these things in
> atomic contexts, and I think we should apply some pressure to move
> the atomic caller cases to use systems where they can sleep such as
> using threaded-irq handlers (they work very nicely)
How do you ensure that printk is always called from a non-atomic
context?
--
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