Messages in this thread | | | From | Michael Buesch <> | Subject | Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c | Date | Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:16:48 +0100 |
| |
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.
| |