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

[Ingo Molnar]

* 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).

preempt_disable() sections are just as much atomic as spinlocked 
regions. Like the name suggests it.

	Ingo
-
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/