[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOD=uF7kQHABCmxUL3-J-hZ1E2mXrb7dgsYq7msHhiPJ4Gm-Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:47:27 +0530
From: santosh prasad nayak <santoshprasadnayak@...il.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: FlorianSchandinat@....de, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Video : Amba: Use in_interrupt() in clcdfb_sleep().
Not to use in_atomic() in driver code.
Following article inspired me to do the change.
http://lwn.net/Articles/274695/
"in_atomic() is for core kernel use only. Because in special
circumstances (ie: kmap_atomic()) we run inc_preempt_count() even on
non-preemptible kernels to tell the per-arch fault handler that it was
invoked by copy_*_user() inside kmap_atomic(), and it must fail.
In other words, in_atomic() works in a specific low-level situation,
but it was never meant to be used in a wider context. Its placement in
hardirq.h next to macros which can be used elsewhere was, thus, almost
certainly a mistake. As Alan Stern pointed out, the fact that Linux
Device Drivers recommends the use of in_atomic() will not have helped
the situation. Your editor recommends that the authors of that book be
immediately sacked. "
In the present case, we just check whether its an IRQ context or user
context. So for that
we can use "in_interrupt()".
Greg also mentions the same in the following mail.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/newbies/msg43402.html
Regards
Santosh
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 06:44:25PM +0530, santosh nayak wrote:
>> From: Santosh Nayak <santoshprasadnayak@...il.com>
>>
>> Instead of "in_atomic()", we can use in_interrupt() to check whether
>> its an interrupt context.
>
> What are you trying to fix?
>
> Your description is an example of a bad commit comment. It merely
> describes the change, which anyone can see by looking at the diff.
> What it totally and utterly fails to do is to describe _why_ the
> change is necessary or what the problem is.
>
> So, until it does, this patch gets a definite NAK.
--
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