Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: kmalloc without GFP_xxx? | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:37:03 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 14:20 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > On Wednesday 29 June 2005 14:15, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 14:02 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > Hi, > > > It struck me that kernel actually can figure out whether it's okay > > > to sleep or not by looking at combination of (flags & __GFP_WAIT) > > > and ((in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) as it already does this for > > > might_sleep() barfing: > > > > that is not enough. > > > > you could be holding a spinlock for example! > > > > (and no that doesn't set in_atomic() always) > > but it sets irqs_disabled() IIRC.
only spin_lock_irq() and co do. not the simple spin_lock()
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |