[openib-general] Re: Re: [Andrew Morton] inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Libor Michalek]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:12:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. Libor Michalek <libor at topspin.com>:
> > Subject: Re: Re: [Andrew Morton] inappropriate use of in_atomic()
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:31:08AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > Sdp also has a couple of uses.
> > > Maybe we can use the atomic branch in all cases here, as well?
> > > Libor?
> > 
> >   Yes, the case in sdp_iocb.c can probably always take the atomic
> > path. The kmap/kunmap cases really only care whether we're in an
> > interrupt, so switching to in_interrupt() should be sufficient.
> 
> Recent comments by Andrew indicate that it is better to always
> use kmap_atomic/kunmap_atomic if possible. This will also
> let us get rid of the wrapper function, which is good.
> 
> Why do you think we need to kmap?

  I didn't realize that the atomic version was prefered over the
regular kmap. The only thing that needs to be done is to make sure
that the local CPU interrupts are off before calling kamp_atomic,
instead we currently check to see if we're in an interrupt and call
the appropriate function. I have no problem changing it to just
atomic.

-Libor