Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c | Date | Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:51:33 -0700 |
| |
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
| |