Re: [RFC][PATCH] Ingo's smptimers patch experiment

• Next message: Roman Zippel: "Re: linux-2.5.4-pre1 - bitkeeper testing"
• Previous message: Thomas Capricelli: "Re: How to check the kernel compile options ?"
• In reply to: Dipankar Sarma: "[RFC][PATCH] Ingo's smptimers patch experiment"
• Next in thread: Dipankar Sarma: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] Ingo's smptimers patch experiment"
• Reply: Dipankar Sarma: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] Ingo's smptimers patch experiment"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In article <20020206211925.A8720@in.ibm.com> you wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> I ported your smptimers patch to 2.5.3 and experimented with
> it a little bit. Basically I am curious about why we
> we need to call run_all_timers() (which runs timers for all
> CPUs) through the timer bh if locking fails in run_local_timers().

Some driver do ugly things with TIMER_BH, and Ingo's 2.4 patched
tried to stayed source compatible with 2.4 drivers.

For 2.5 I'd really like to see TIMER_BH (all BH's in fact) to gone.

        Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.
-
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/

• Next message: Roman Zippel: "Re: linux-2.5.4-pre1 - bitkeeper testing"
• Previous message: Thomas Capricelli: "Re: How to check the kernel compile options ?"
• In reply to: Dipankar Sarma: "[RFC][PATCH] Ingo's smptimers patch experiment"
• Next in thread: Dipankar Sarma: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] Ingo's smptimers patch experiment"
• Reply: Dipankar Sarma: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] Ingo's smptimers patch experiment"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:51 EST