Re: inappropriate use of in_atomic()

From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Fri Mar 11 2005 - 07:41:48 EST

On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 20:53 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Consequently the use of in_atomic() in the below files is probably
> > deadlocky if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n:
> ...
> > drivers/infiniband/core/mad.c
> Thanks for pointing this out. I'll get you a patch in the next day or
> two. As you can probably tell, the code is just trying to decide
> whether to use GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_KERNEL to allocate a couple of
> things, depending on what context we're being called from. So at
> worst we can just change to GFP_ATOMIC unconditionally.

normally you are supposed to know what context your allocating function
is called in... if you don't know that often is a sign of a misdesign...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at