Re: [RFC] Rename _bh to _softirq

From: Maksim (Max) Krasnyanskiy (maxk@qualcomm.com)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 17:09:36 EST


> > "base handler" and "bottom half" all refer to an execution context,
> > and these days that means softirq.
>
>i think i agree with you.
>
>- we have 'top half' contexts, which are also called 'hardirqs'.
>
>- then we have 'bottom half' contexts, which are also called 'softirqs'.
>
>the fact that 'bottom halves' used to be an earlier concept that had a
>slightly different meaning from 'softirqs' for a limited amount of time
>does not remove from the meaningfulness of the naming itself. Today
>'bottom halves' and 'softirqs' are the same thing.

I still think we should rename _bh thing :). At least for consistent naming.
We have things like:
         in_softirq()
         do_softirq()
         sofirq_pending()
and
         local_bh_disable()
         local_bh_enable()

Anyway, I'll go ahead and shut up :). Most people didn't seem to like that
proposal :(.

Max

-
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 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:58 EST