Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 1999 00:58:03 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Re: setitimer lowlatency-2.2.13-A1 questions |
| |
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>my idea was to change semantics. The issue is subtle: otherwise we'd have >to put a check into __sti() and __restore_flags() to run >run_bottom_halves() - which clearly is too much overhead. enable_bh() >is/should only be used by system call context anyway, so it should not be >a problem to call enable_bh() with irqs enabled. [maybe an additional >enable_bh_sti() call could be added, to 'merge' the two sti's]
Yes, I agree with the BUG() way (subtle). About the enable_bh_sti() I don't think it worth to implement it (even if it could save us an __sti()) because I don't think it's common to call enable_bh with irq disabled (maybe nobody is doing that just now).
BTW, local_bh_enable()/end_bh_atomic() should be fixed too in the same way (they are not less important).
Andrea
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |