Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

Daniel Walker wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, [ISO-8859-15] Mika Penttil� wrote:

Not with !softirq_preemption, then we take the immediate path and process soft irqs on irq exit.

My changes aren't used in that case.

Daniel

ok, so maybe the safe way is to enforce threaded softirq with the soft irq flag.

--Mika


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]