[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] Re: setitimer lowlatency-2.2.13-A1 questions
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>[..] we should do a BUG() if enable_bh() is called
>with IRQs disabled - this will sort out the problems and solves the
>latency issue as well.

Only BUG() won't help the latency. And it seems not a problem.

Why do you want to forbid people to enable_bh with irq disabled? there's
nothing bad in doing so. You must _not_ run the bh handlers if you can't
reenable irqs, but you _can_ reenable the bhs (for example for other cpus)
even if you have irq disabled.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.056 / U:5.004 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site