Re: in_atomic() & spin_lock / spin_unlock in different functions

• Next message: Sean Neakums: "Re: Problem with ide-scsi kernel module"
• Previous message: solrosin@theretriever.org: "Problem with ide-scsi kernel module"
• Maybe in reply to: Pavel Machek: "in_atomic() & spin_lock / spin_unlock in different functions"
• Next in thread: Robert Love: "Re: in_atomic() & spin_lock / spin_unlock in different functions"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> What is it that in_atomic counts? Obviously spinlocks and
> get_cpu/put_cpu. Anything else?
>

preempt_disable(), local_irq_disable(), local_bh_disable().

> I'm doing spin_lock_irqsave() then in another function
> spin_unlock_irqrestore. Is that okay? If no, can it cause "scheduling
> in atomic"?

It's not okay, but shouldn't cause scheduling in atomic messages.

The problem is sparc: the 'unsigned long flags' parameter used by
_irqsave and _irqrestore contains the stack frame, which means that you
cannot pass it between functions.

--
	Manfred
-
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/

• Next message: Sean Neakums: "Re: Problem with ide-scsi kernel module"
• Previous message: solrosin@theretriever.org: "Problem with ide-scsi kernel module"
• Maybe in reply to: Pavel Machek: "in_atomic() & spin_lock / spin_unlock in different functions"
• Next in thread: Robert Love: "Re: in_atomic() & spin_lock / spin_unlock in different functions"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:46 EST