Re: 2.6.12-rc2 in_atomic() picks up preempt_disable()

[Andrew Morton]

Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx> 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).

Is this new behaviour?

It sounds correct to me:

	preempt_disable();
	do_something_which_might_sleep();
	preempt_enable();

Is buggy?
-
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/