[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 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).


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:0.068 / U:23.776 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site