Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262411AbVDGKLU (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:11:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262413AbVDGKLU (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:11:20 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:2709 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262411AbVDGKLT (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:11:19 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3_20040314 03/14/2004 with nmh-1.0.4 From: Keith Owens To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel Subject: 2.6.12-rc2 in_atomic() picks up preempt_disable() Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:10:13 +1000 Message-ID: <13730.1112868613@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 722 Lines: 14 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). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/