From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:16:48 +0100
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
	stern@rowland.harvard.edu, hmh@hmh.eng.br, david-b@pacbell.net,
	rpurdie@rpsys.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
	geert@linux-m68k.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, video4linux-list@redhat.com,
	stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0803202126240.11234-100000@netrider.rowland.org> <20080321165405.GC5766@kroah.com> <20080321125950.a5b38bda.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080321125950.a5b38bda.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-Id: <200803212116.49462.mb@bu3sch.de> (sfid-20080321_201746_386541_CFFC7841)
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Friday 21 March 2008 20:59:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
> They could of course be switched to using
> kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC)+memcpy()+schedule_task().  That's rather slow, but this
> is not a performance-sensitive area.  But more seriously, this could lead
> to messages getting lost from a dying machine.

Well, IMO drivers that need to sleep to transmit some data (to whatever,
the screen or something) are not useful for debugging a crashing kernel anyway.
Or how high is the possibility that it'd survive the actual sleep in the
memory allocation? I'd say almost zero.
So that schedule_task() is not that bad.

-- 
Greetings Michael.