lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSat, 22 Mar 2008 12:29:57 +0100
FromStefan Richter <>
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
I wrote:
>>> and eth1394 to deal with temporary lack of of tlabels.  Alas I just  
>>> recently received a report that eth1394's workaround is unsuccessful 
>>> on  non-preemptible uniprocessor kernels.  
> (I haven't started working on a fix, or opened a bugzilla 
> ticket for it yet.  The reporter currently switched his kernel to 
> PREEMPT which is not affected.)

now logged as http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10306

> The failure in the workaround is *not* about the in_atomic() being the 
> wrong question asked in hpsb_get_tlabel() --- no, ieee1394's in_atomic() 
> abuse works just fine even on UP PREEMPT_NONE.  Instead, the failure is 
> about kthreads not being scheduled in the way that I thought they would.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- --== =-==-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-22 12:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2008