Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:54:12 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.12-rc2 in_atomic() picks up preempt_disable() |
| |
* Keith Owens <kaos@sgi.com> wrote:
> 2.6.12-rc2, with CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG. The > in_atomic() macro thinks that preempt_disable() indicates an atomic > region so calls to __might_sleep() result in a stack trace. > preempt_count() returns 1, no soft or hard irqs are running and no > spinlocks are held. It looks like there is no way to distinguish > between the use of preempt_disable() in the lock functions (atomic) > and preempt_disable() outside the lock functions (do nothing that > might migrate me).
preempt_disable() sections are just as much atomic as spinlocked regions. Like the name suggests it.
Ingo - 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/
|  |