On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 19:01, David S. Miller wrote:
> That isn't in the tree now. We can only make analsis of the patch
> based upon what is in 2.5.x right now, you can't base it on what
> might be added in the future.
Could there possibly be any interaction between SERIAL_BH and TIMER_BH?
I guess my stance is if each BH-removal patch figures out its
syncronization issues, each should be fine regardless of what the other
BHs do.
The timer_bh runs often but touches a comprehensible amount of data.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 23 2002 - 22:00:21 EST