lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 20 Mar 2008 16:47:41 -0700
FromAndrew Morton <>
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:56:12 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:

> Can we add "in_scheduleable()", or maybe "can_schedule()", that returns
> in_atomic() if CONFIG_PREEMT, or 0 if there is no way to know?   To my
> limited knowledge of how that part of the kernel works, it would do the
> right thing.

If we did that, then people would use it.  And that would be bad.  It'll
lead to code which behaves differently on non-preemptible kernels, to code
which works less well on non-preemptible kernels and it will lead to less
well-thought-out code in general.

Really, this all points at an ill-designed part of the leds interface.  The
consistent pattern we use in the kernel is that callers keep track of
whether they are running in a schedulable context and, if necessary, they
will inform callees about that.  Callees don't work it out for themselves.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-20 23:51    [W:2.681 / U:0.130 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans