![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:34:49 -0600 corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) wrote: > 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) It'd be better if the comment were to describe _why_ in_atomic() is unreliable. ie: "does not account for held spinlocks on non-preemptible kernels". -- 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 19:45 [W:20.005 / U:1.190 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||