Re: 2.4.7 softirq incorrectness.

Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:06:40 +1000

In message <20010723013416.B23517@athlon.random> you write:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 06:44:10AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > This current code is bogus. Consider:
> > spin_lock_irqsave(flags);
> > cpu_raise_softirq(this_cpu, NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(flags);
>
> What kernel are you looking at? There's no such code in 2.4.7, the only

Oh, so it's only a trap *waiting* to happen. That's OK then!

> The first netif_rx is required to run from interrupt handler (otherwise
> we should have executed cpu_raise_softirq and not
> __cpu_raise_softirq)

Aside: why does it do a local_irq_save() if it's always run from an
interrupt handler?

> I cannot see any problem.

Why not fix all the cases? Why have this wierd secret rule that
cpu_raise_softirq() should not be called with irqs disabled?

Call me old-fashioned, but why not *fix* the problem, if you're going
to rewrite this code... again...

Rusty.

--
Premature optmztion is rt of all evl. --DK
-
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/