lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
Date
On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > 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?

Not before 2.6.25 ships it isn't. :)


> I have changed the thinkpad-acpi leds code to always assume an atomic
> context, but I too would appreciate a proper flag (or secondary hook)
> from the LED class to know when I am in an atomic context or not.
>
> LED Triggers also need to be modified, they are mostly called from an
> atomic context so we have to assume that by default, but we'd do well to
> add a way to call them from non-atomic contexts.
>
> Richard? AFAIK, the ball *is* in your court as the LED maintainer. You
> have to decide which way to go and tell us.

Presumably, both near-term and long-term solutions are needed.

I'd suggest merging the leds-gpio and thinkpad-acpi fixes
before 2.6.25 ships, and then *maybe* adopting something
more invasive.

- Dave


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-27 20:07    [W:0.158 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site