Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:54:16 -0700 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Replace timer_bh with tasklet |
| |
"David S. Miller" wrote: > > From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> > Date: 19 Jun 2002 19:15:34 -0700 > > Could there possibly be any interaction between SERIAL_BH and TIMER_BH? > > Or the drivers... these are the questions that must be answered before > we can consider the patch. > > Also the TIMER_BH patch has to attend to the deliver_to_old_ones issue > before it may be considered further.
Is the only network issue? Is it possible that the network code uses bh_locking to protect against timers? Moveing timers to softirqs would invalidate this sort of protection. Is this an issue? -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |