[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: no DRQ after issuing WRITE was Re: 2.4.23-uv3 patch set released

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Rob Love wrote:
    > Anyhow, if interrupts are disabled, preemption should be disabled (we
    > check for that condition in both preempt_schedule() and
    > return_from_intr).

    Interrupts are _not_ disabled here, very much on purpose. If they were,
    then "jiffies" wouldn't update, and the timeouts wouldn't work.

    This is what that _stupid_ "local_irq_set()" function does: it saves the
    old irq masking state, and then it enables it.

    The whole concept doesn't make any sense. If you enable interrupts, there
    is little point in saving the callers irq mask, since it already got

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.025 / U:2.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site