![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | ||||||||||