lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
Date
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean