> cpu_raise_softirq is valid in any context. calling cpu_raise_softirq
> there was correct (__cpu_raise_softirq would been too weak).
I see now, the picture clears.
> fix the tasklet problem (only tasklets had a problem in 2.4.7).
I said the problem was not in code. In understanding this.
I am still not 100% sure what is legal, what is not. :-)
F.e. Andrea, teach me how to make the following thing (not for released
kernel, for me): I want to schedule softirq, but I do not want that
this softirq eat all the cpu. It looks natural to use ksoftirqd for this.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/