"Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +int __cant_sleep(void) {
> + return in_atomic() || irqs_disabled() || in_interrupt();
aww, man, this is awful. Code is supposed to know what context it's
running in, not go fishing about in core internals trying to fix up its own
confusion.
> + /* Is in_interrupt() really needed? */
> }
Yes, it is. in_atomic() is a no-op on !PREEMPT and local irq's can be
enabled in soft- or hard- interrupt context, so irqs_disabled() will return
0.
-
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]
