From: shmulik.hen@intel.com
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:32:02 +0200 (IST)
Further more, holding a lock_irq doesn't mean bottom halves are disabled
too, it just means interrupts are disabled and no *new* softirq can be
queued. Consider the following situation:
I think local_bh_enable() should check irqs_disabled() and honour that.
What you are showing here, that BH's can run via local_bh_enable()
even when IRQs are disabled, is a BUG().
IRQ disabling is meant to be stronger than softint disabling.
Ingo/Linus?
-
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 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:27 EST