Re: lockdep oddity

Heiko Carstens
2006-09-06T08:02:07Z

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:47:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:20:43 +0200
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm also wondering why the profile
> > patch contains this:
> >
> > + if (ret)
> > + likeliness->count[1]++;
> > + else
> > + likeliness->count[0]++;
> >
> > This isn't smp safe. Is that on purpose or a bug?
>
> Purposeful. This is called from all contexts, including NMI.

Why not use atomic_inc then? Or is there some architecture dependent
limitation that it can't be done in every context?