| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: timers in net/ipv6 |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:38:12 +0200 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200006081805.WAA09761@ms2.inr.ac.ru>; from kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru on Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:05:08PM +0200 |
| References: | <20000608194423.A18631@fred.muc.de> <200006081805.WAA09761@ms2.inr.ac.ru> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:05:08PM +0200, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello! > > > We no longer have bh protection against timers, so a timer may run > > softirqs are not nested. Apparently, you mean scheme, > which we discussed year ago. It was dropped because of utter > complexity, only one softirq per cpu is held now. Ok, just hope then that there is never an exception during softirq execution (like spurious interrupt or NMI handled by an debugger) -- ret_from_exception calls the softirq. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: timers in net/ipv6, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Slow TCP connection between linux and wince, kuznet |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: timers in net/ipv6, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: timers in net/ipv6, kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |