lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Any hope for ide-scsi (error handling)?
Date
On Saturday 15 March 2003 10:01 pm, Willem Riede wrote:
> It may not be elegant to schedule(1) with the lock taken, but it
> does work.
>
> However, my latest patch doesn't seem to be applied, since in my
> version I have a set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); before
> the schedule.

I don't see how it works.

spin_lock_irqsave() increments preempt_count()
in_atomic checks is defined as:
# define in_atomic() ((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != kernel_locked())
kernel_locked() is defined as:
#define kernel_locked() (current->lock_depth >= 0)

If you call schedule while in_atomic() then it prints out the error
"bad: scheduling while atomic!\n".

As far as I can see set_current_state() doesn't affect
preempt_count() or current->lock_depth. I must be
missing something...

regards,
dan carpenter

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.060 / U:9.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site