* 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).
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
