[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
    On Friday 21 March 2008 20:59:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
    > They could of course be switched to using
    > kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC)+memcpy()+schedule_task(). That's rather slow, but this
    > is not a performance-sensitive area. But more seriously, this could lead
    > to messages getting lost from a dying machine.

    Well, IMO drivers that need to sleep to transmit some data (to whatever,
    the screen or something) are not useful for debugging a crashing kernel anyway.
    Or how high is the possibility that it'd survive the actual sleep in the
    memory allocation? I'd say almost zero.
    So that schedule_task() is not that bad.

    Greetings Michael.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-21 21:21    [W:0.029 / U:14.276 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site