[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1509739786.2473.33.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 20:09:49 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To: "yang.s@...baba-inc.com" <yang.s@...baba-inc.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use in_atomic() in print_vma_addr()
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 11:02 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Also, checkpatch says
>
> WARNING: use of in_atomic() is incorrect outside core kernel code
> #43: FILE: mm/memory.c:4491:
> + if (in_atomic())
>
> I don't recall why we did that, but perhaps this should be revisited?
Is the comment above in_atomic() still up-to-date? From <linux/preempt.h>:
/*
* Are we running in atomic context? WARNING: this macro cannot
* always detect atomic context; in particular, it cannot know about
* held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Thus it should not be
* used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible.
* Do not use in_atomic() in driver code.
*/
#define in_atomic() (preempt_count() != 0)
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists