Re: [PATCH] Replace timer_bh with tasklet

george anzinger (george@mvista.com)
Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:54:16 -0700

"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
> Date: 19 Jun 2002 19:15:34 -0700
>
> Could there possibly be any interaction between SERIAL_BH and TIMER_BH?
>
> Or the drivers... these are the questions that must be answered before
> we can consider the patch.
>
> Also the TIMER_BH patch has to attend to the deliver_to_old_ones issue
> before it may be considered further.

Is the only network issue? Is it possible that the network code uses bh_locking to protect against timers? Moveing timers to softirqs would invalidate this sort of protection. Is this an issue?

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Real time sched:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
-
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/