Re: [ACPI] inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Jan Kasprzak]

Andrew Morton wrote:
: 
: in_atomic() is not a reliable indication of whether it is currently safe
: to call schedule().
: 
: This is because the lockdepth beancounting which in_atomic() uses is only
: accumulated if CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.  in_atomic() will return false inside
: spinlocks if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
: 
: Consequently the use of in_atomic() in the below files is probably
: deadlocky if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n:
[...]
: 	drivers/acpi/osl.c
[...]

This may be the cause of 

http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150

- I have recently verified that the problem described in bug #4150 disappears
when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y is used.

-Yenya


-- 
| Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak  <kas at {fi.muni.cz - work | yenya.net - private}> |
| GPG: ID 1024/D3498839      Fingerprint 0D99A7FB206605D7 8B35FCDE05B18A5E |
| http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/   Czech Linux Homepage: http://www.linux.cz/ |
> Whatever the Java applications and desktop dances may lead to, Unix will <
> still be pushing the packets around for a quite a while.      --Rob Pike <
-
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/