Satyam Sharma wrote: > On 4/30/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> i2o/device.c should be GFP_KERNEL as far as I can tell. It was meant to >> be that way and the callers appear to all be calling it in sleep capable >> contexts. >> >> aic7xxx_old.c should probably be GFP_KERNEL as ->slave_alloc methods >> appear to be able to sleep (although some drivers use GFP_ATOMIC here and >> some GFP_KERNEL). > > Yes, none of the above appear to be atomic contexts. GFP_KERNEL in > that case would've been a bug. If they were atomic contexts, someone > somewhere would've been seeing a lot of "BUG: sleeping function called > from invalid context" messages and would've probably brought it to > lkml's notice already ;-) So the GFP_ATOMIC seems to be redundant > thing here in both cases.
Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.txt agrees that ->slave_alloc is allowed to sleep. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-= ----= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
