On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 20:10 +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > 2.6.12-rc2, with CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG. The > in_atomic() macro thinks that preempt_disable() indicates an atomic > region so calls to __might_sleep() result in a stack trace.
but you're not allowed to schedule when preempt is disabled! > preempt_count() returns 1, no soft or hard irqs are running and no > spinlocks are held. It looks like there is no way to distinguish > between the use of preempt_disable() in the lock functions (atomic) and > preempt_disable() outside the lock functions (do nothing that might > migrate me). in what code are you seeing this? - 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/
