Hi Pavel, Please elaborate... Your comments "ugly as hell" are too often to be specific... There is only one use of ACPI_PREEMPTION_POINT(), and it is in the ACPICA code, which we all agreed to keep OS independent, thus the need for #define. Do you see any other way to add preemption point without introducing Linux-specific code into ACPICA? Thanks, Alex. Pavel Machek пишет: > On Fri 2009-12-04 12:26:00, Xiaotian Feng wrote: > >> 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. >> >> The fix is to cond_sched() only when preemptible, which means not in >> irq_disabled or in_atomic. >> >> @@ -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 (preemptible()) \ >> cond_resched(); \ >> } while (0) >> > > Note that this is ugly as hell. It means we have two acpi > interpretters in kernel, one for preemptible, one for non-preemptible, > with very different behaviour. > > It would be slightly nicer to pass the "preemptible" info explicitely, > as function parameters. > > It would be even better not to need that difference. > > Pavel > -- 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
