lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.606 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site