Re: [PATCH -rt 2/9] Dont allow non-threaded softirqs and threaded hardirqs

* Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
> 
> I think this was sent before, and it did cause problems before. Would 
> there be *any* reason to have non-threaded softirqs but threaded 
> hardirqs. I can see lots of issues with that.

please elaborate in precise terms: what issues can you see?

	Ingo
-
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 -rt 2/9] Dont allow non-threaded softirqs and threaded hardirqs
  - From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow
  - From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
- [PATCH -rt 2/9] Dont allow non-threaded softirqs and threaded hardirqs
  - From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -rt 3/9] Fix jiffies wrap issue in update_times
Previous by thread: [PATCH -rt 2/9] Dont allow non-threaded softirqs and threaded hardirqs
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH -rt 2/9] Dont allow non-threaded softirqs and threaded hardirqs
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]