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

2005-04-07 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 20:40 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:17:37 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 20:10 +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > >> 2.6.12-rc2, with CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG. The > >> in_atomic() macro thinks that preempt_disable()

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

2005-04-07 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Mikael Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:17:37 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 20:10 +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > >> 2.6.12-rc2, with CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG. The > >> in_atomic() macro thinks that preempt_disable() indicates

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

2005-04-07 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:17:37 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 20:10 +1000, Keith Owens 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

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

2005-04-07 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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 ru

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

2005-04-07 Thread Romano Giannetti
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:17:37PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 20:10 +1000, Keith Owens 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()

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

2005-04-07 Thread Andrew Morton
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

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

2005-04-07 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 20:10 +1000, Keith Owens 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. but you're not allowed to schedule when preempt

2.6.12-rc2 in_atomic() picks up preempt_disable()

2005-04-07 Thread Keith Owens
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