[PATCH] s390: in_interrupt vs. in_atomic
authorMartin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:43:32 +0000 (15:43 -0700)
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@ppc970.osdl.org>
Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:13:00 +0000 (17:13 -0700)
commit595bf2aacae96d0f87352a1ff5476b79e52e212f
tree049de411ab06dd7d32565c04231d0ff965eb8f9f
parentc5c3a6d8fe923b8780b9cd10e72344b8cf8518b5
[PATCH] s390: in_interrupt vs. in_atomic

The condition for no context in do_exception checks for hard and soft
interrupts by using in_interrupt() but not for preemption.  This is bad for
the users of __copy_from/to_user_inatomic because the fault handler might call
schedule although the preemption count is != 0.  Use in_atomic() instead
in_interrupt().

Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
arch/s390/mm/fault.c