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:0.020 / U:215.292 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site