Re: timer_bh behaviour incorrect for 2.2.13?
William Montgomery (william@opinicus.com)
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:23:58 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > while ((active = get_active_bhs()) {
> >
> >how about .... __sti(); ?
> >
> >> > > clear_active_bhs(active);
>
> Yes that' the right place for the __sti(). After reading the active bhs
> and before clearing them. Also remove the __sti and __cli() from the
> caller.
>
Maybe the __sti(); should come *after* the clear_active_bhs?
A bh could get marked just prior to the clear_active_bhs and be lost?
Does it hurt to keep __sti and __cli() in the caller?
Wm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/