local_bh_disable vs. local_irq_disable: hierarchical?

From: Ethan Solomita (ethan@cs.columbia.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 20:32:11 EST


        My straightforward question: If code has called local_irq_disable, does
this guarantee that a bottom half handler cannot run?

        I'm looking for a statement on semantics. I've tried to hunt
documentation in many forms. None of them imply that disabling irqs
would also disable bottom halves. It might just be me, but I have a
strong sense that disabling interrupts is a stronger statement than
disabling bottom halves.

        However I don't want to trust my instincts for this. I am looking for a
clear statement on the Linux definitions. And I am not asking this
question just to satisfy some curiosity -- there is an underlying
problem I'm hoping to put to rest.

        Thanks!
        -- Ethan
-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:22 EST