Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:23:58 -0500 (EST) | From | William Montgomery <> | Subject | Re: timer_bh behaviour incorrect for 2.2.13? |
| |
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > >> > > > >> > > while ((active = get_active_bhs()) { > > > >how about .... __sti(); ? > > > >> > > clear_active_bhs(active); > > Yes that' the right place for the __sti(). After reading the active bhs > and before clearing them. Also remove the __sti and __cli() from the > caller. > Maybe the __sti(); should come *after* the clear_active_bhs? A bh could get marked just prior to the clear_active_bhs and be lost?
Does it hurt to keep __sti and __cli() in the caller?
Wm
- 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/
| |