Re: 2.4.7 softirq incorrectness.

Hello!

> Do you mean "user context" when you say normal? 

Why "user" then? :-)

Well, after some digging in brains I find that I use home-made terminology.
non-interrupt/non-bh context is called "process context" here. :-)
"Normal context" is process context with enabled BHs and irqs.

> The reason I pushed to have netif_FOO use __cpu_raise_softirq() was
> that I felt sick to my stomache when I saw a new whole function call
> added to that spot. 

I experience even more unpleasant feelings, when thinking what would happen
if netif_rx() without these __ is called from under irq protected spinlock.

> Let us just fix the odd places that aren't calling things in the
> correct environment.

I caught you! :-) Each "context" is normal, but "environment" still can
be wrong. 

Yes, I agreed. It is the simplest solution. In any case, all the instances
of netif_rx are to be checked for spinlock-safeness.

Alexey