Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:37:32 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>,
       Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>,
       David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>,
       Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
Message-Id: <20080321103732.ea08e189.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080321105311.1a55cc0f@hyperion.delvare>
References: <20080320192719.6a32386e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0803202301140.16520-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
	<20080320201723.b87b3732.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20080321105311.1a55cc0f@hyperion.delvare>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 815
Lines: 21

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:53:11 +0100 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:17:23 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > in_atomic() is for core kernel use only.  (...)
> 
> Then why is it made available to drivers through <linux/hardirq.h>?

Because we suck.

> If
> it's such a dangerous macro to call from drivers, it shouldn't be made
> available, or at the very least there should be a big fat warning in
> <linux/hardirq.h> that drivers aren't supposed to use it. This would
> have avoided the 23 uses cases in drivers we have right now.

True.
--
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/