Now that PREEMPT_ACTIVE implies PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET, ignoring PREEMPT_ACTIVE from in_atomic() check isn't useful anymore.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> --- include/linux/preempt.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h index 4057696..a1a00e1 100644 --- a/include/linux/preempt.h +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ * used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible. * Do not use in_atomic() in driver code. */ -#define in_atomic() ((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != 0) +#define in_atomic() (preempt_count() != 0) /* * Check whether we were atomic before we did preempt_disable(): -- 2.1.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
