Keith Owens <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
