how about .... __sti(); ?
> > > clear_active_bhs(active);
> > > ...
>
> ++ __cli();
>
> > > }
> > >
>
> you have missed the _real_ reason why the above 'bug' was there. It's a
> feature and prevents denial of service attacks. Especially wrt. networking
> it's very easy to flood a box with bh traffic, and if we are not careful
> then slower systems (routers) can effectively be locked up just by
> bombarding them with small/tricky packets. So we were always intentionally
> trying to guarantee that bhs do not get rerun infinitely.
>
Or was the __sti() left out intentionally to help prevent DOS
attacks?
Wm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/