Hi Xiaotian, I think, this is another round of "armor vs. bullet" race... It will hold until might_sleep() logic changes again. Please consider using preemptible() -- IMHO this is the check we should perform in our case of voluntary preemption. Regards, Alex. Xiaotian Feng пишет: > commit 8bd108d adds preemption point after each opcode parse, then > a sleeping function called from invalid context bug was founded > during suspend/resume stage. this was fixed in commit abe1dfa by > don't cond_resched when irq_disabled. But recent commit 138d156 changes > the behaviour to don't cond_resched when in_atomic. This makes the > sleeping function called from invalid context bug happen again, which > is reported in http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/1/371. > > This patch also fixes http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14483 > > Reported-and-bisected-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reported-and-bisected-by: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> > --- > include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h b/include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h > index 9d7febd..0946997 100644 > --- a/include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h > +++ b/include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h > @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static inline void *acpi_os_acquire_object(acpi_cache_t * cache) > #include <linux/hardirq.h> > #define ACPI_PREEMPTION_POINT() \ > do { \ > - if (!in_atomic_preempt_off()) \ > + if (!in_atomic_preempt_off() && !irqs_disabled()) \ > cond_resched(); \ > } while (0) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
