lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
From
Date
Hello.

> > In short, you are saying that there is _no_ reliable way to determine
> > am-i-called-from-inside-spinlock.
>
> That's correct.

So, it is impossible to know whether I am inside a spinlock or not.
OK. That's not what I want to do.

I want to make sure that my code (not a device driver) is called only from a context
where use of down()/mutex_lock()/kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)/get_user_pages()/kmap() etc. are permitted.
Is "if (in_atomic()) return;" check a correct method for avoiding deadlocks
when my code was accidentally called from a context
where use of down()/mutex_lock()/kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)/get_user_pages()/kmap() etc. are not permitted?
I'm assuming that in_atomic() returns nonzero whenever scheduling is not permitted.
Regards.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 16:15    [W:0.536 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site