On Die, 2012-01-03 at 21:04 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:16:25PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Die, 2012-01-03 at 18:09 +0000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > 2012/1/3 Michel D?nzer <michel at daenzer.net>: > > > > From: Michel D?nzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com> > > > > > > > > It can be called from atomic context, e.g. when switching to console > > > > for panic > > > > output. > > > > > > > > Fixes: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43941 > > > > > > I wonder how ugly it would be to check for atomic context or not, > > > > So do I. :) The comment in include/linux/hardirq.h that ends in 'Do not > > use in_atomic() in driver code.' sounds rathery scary... > > We already use in_atomic checks in similar delay code in drm/i915 for the > same reasons. I think the ugly mess that results from the panic notifier > calling into kms code is justification enough to neglect the the comment > about not using in_atomic in drivers.
Okay, v2 sent. -- Earthling Michel D?nzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
