Re: [RFC] Rename _bh to _softirq

[Maksim]

> > "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