lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 26 Mar 2008 10:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
FromAlan Stern <>
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, David Brownell wrote:

> I _almost_ hate bringing this lovely flamage back onto $SUBJECT ... but
> what's the resolution for the leds-gpio.c issue?  I've not seen a merge
> notice for the patch I submitted a week ago now:
> 
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120597839009399&w=2
> 
> Just a "leaning..." comment:
> 
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120606104619198&w=2
> 
> Seems to me that by now there ought to be resolution on at least
> one of the issues brought up on this thread.  :)

Is it reasonable to have two version of that subroutine: one meant to 
be called in a sleepable context and the other to be called when 
sleeping isn't allowed?

Alan Stern



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-26 15:31    [W:0.561 / U:0.210 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans