> Old BHs have been almost completely replaced with tasklets and softirqs.
> Should we then rename _bh to _softirq ?
> i.e
> local_bh_disable() -> local_softirq_disable()
> spin_lock_bh() -> spin_lock_softirq()
> bh_lock_sock() -> softirq_sock_lock()
> etc
i wanted to do this as part of the irqlock cleanups, but generally we dont
change existing interfaces unless it's really universally agreed upon. Eg.
we had cli() around for a *long* time although it's an x86 (-mostly)
instruction name. But yes, i agree, and there are a number of other
renames that would make perfect sense.
Ingo
-
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/