Re: no DRQ after issuing WRITE was Re: 2.4.23-uv3 patch set released

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Rob Love wrote:
> 
> Anyhow, if interrupts are disabled, preemption should be disabled (we
> check for that condition in both preempt_schedule() and
> return_from_intr).

Interrupts are _not_ disabled here, very much on purpose. If they were, 
then "jiffies" wouldn't update, and the timeouts wouldn't work.

This is what that _stupid_ "local_irq_set()" function does: it saves the 
old irq masking state, and then it enables it.

The whole concept doesn't make any sense. If you enable interrupts, there 
is little point in saving the callers irq mask, since it already got 
deflated.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/