Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c

[Jonathan Corbet]

Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There's also a section about in_atomic() in the Linux Device Drivers 
> (3rd ed.) book which may have contributed to the confusion.

My fault (again).  Obviously it *looked* like something people could use
to me...  

How about the following patch as a short-term penance to keep others
from making the same mistake?

jon

--

Discourage people from using in_atomic()

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>

diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h
index 4982998..3d196cb 100644
--- a/include/linux/hardirq.h
+++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h
@@ -72,6 +72,11 @@
 #define in_softirq()		(softirq_count())
 #define in_interrupt()		(irq_count())
 
+/*
+ * Are we running in atomic context?  WARNING: this macro cannot
+ * always detect atomic context and should not be used to determine
+ * whether sleeping is possible.  Do not use it in driver code.
+ */
 #define in_atomic()		((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != 0)
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/