![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread Patch in this message |
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: > There's also a section about in_atomic() in the Linux Device Drivers > (3rd ed.) book which may have contributed to the confusion. My fault (again). Obviously it *looked* like something people could use to me... How about the following patch as a short-term penance to keep others from making the same mistake? jon -- Discourage people from using in_atomic() Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h index 4982998..3d196cb 100644 --- a/include/linux/hardirq.h +++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ #define in_softirq() (softirq_count()) #define in_interrupt() (irq_count()) +/* + * Are we running in atomic context? WARNING: this macro cannot + * always detect atomic context and should not be used to determine + * whether sleeping is possible. Do not use it in driver code. + */ #define in_atomic() ((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != 0) #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-24 19:37 [W:0.448 / U:0.040 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||