![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> As for 'buffering', after disable_bh is called, the next interrupt of > any kind including (AFAIK) the timer tick will run any outstanding > bottom half code. This takes precedence over user driven code. It's a > tradeoff, a more local lock and a slightly delayed bh against a global > lock that hits every piece of code. Thats too expensive for networking and for other things. However what Ingo suggested which is having an enable_bh() or variant that does run pending bh handlers solves it Alan | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38 [W:0.113 / U:0.580 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||