Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755478AbYCZO3O (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:29:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750717AbYCZO27 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:28:59 -0400 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:39119 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751202AbYCZO26 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:28:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:28:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: David Brownell cc: rpurdie@rpsys.net, , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c In-Reply-To: <20080325232042.4EDA7346532@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 940 Lines: 26 On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, David Brownell wrote: > I _almost_ hate bringing this lovely flamage back onto $SUBJECT ... but > what's the resolution for the leds-gpio.c issue? I've not seen a merge > notice for the patch I submitted a week ago now: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120597839009399&w=2 > > Just a "leaning..." comment: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120606104619198&w=2 > > Seems to me that by now there ought to be resolution on at least > one of the issues brought up on this thread. :) Is it reasonable to have two version of that subroutine: one meant to be called in a sleepable context and the other to be called when sleeping isn't allowed? Alan Stern -- 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/