[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>

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
index 80306bc8c799..75fde949d125 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ do_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, int is_protection)
          * we are not in an interrupt and that there is a 
          * user context.
          */
-        if (user_address == 0 || in_interrupt() || !mm)
+        if (user_address == 0 || in_atomic() || !mm)
                 goto no_context;
 
         /*