[PATCH] uml: avoid malloc to sleep in atomic sections

Ugly trick to help make malloc not sleeping - we can't do anything else.  But
this is not yet optimal, since spinlock don't trigger in_atomic() when
preemption is disabled.

Also, even if ugly, this was already used in one place, and was even more
bogus.  Fix it.

Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

1 files changed, 13 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/process_kern.c b/arch/um/kernel/process_kern.c
index e167cf0a71f..3113cab8675 100644
--- a/arch/um/kernel/process_kern.c
+++ b/arch/um/kernel/process_kern.c
@@ -287,17 +287,27 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(disable_hlt);
 
 void *um_kmalloc(int size)
 {
-	return(kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL));
+	return kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
 }
 
 void *um_kmalloc_atomic(int size)
 {
-	return(kmalloc(size, GFP_ATOMIC));
+	return kmalloc(size, GFP_ATOMIC);
 }
 
 void *um_vmalloc(int size)
 {
-	return(vmalloc(size));
+	return vmalloc(size);
+}
+
+void *um_vmalloc_atomic(int size)
+{
+	return __vmalloc(size, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGHMEM, PAGE_KERNEL);
+}
+
+int __cant_sleep(void) {
+	return in_atomic() || irqs_disabled() || in_interrupt();
+	/* Is in_interrupt() really needed? */
 }
 
 unsigned long get_fault_addr(void)
@@ -369,11 +379,6 @@ int smp_sigio_handler(void)
 	return(0);
 }
 
-int um_in_interrupt(void)
-{
-	return(in_interrupt());
-}
-
 int cpu(void)
 {
 	return(current_thread->cpu);