From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EC0DDF86 for ; Tue, 12 May 2009 09:24:42 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20090511.162436.193717082.davem@davemloft.net> To: cfriesen@nortel.com Subject: Re: question about softirqs From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <4A086DB2.8040703@nortel.com> References: <18948.63755.279732.294842@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20090508.234815.127227651.davem@davemloft.net> <4A086DB2.8040703@nortel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "Chris Friesen" Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:25:54 -0600 > David Miller wrote: > >> You know, for networking over loopback (one of the only real cases >> that even matters, if we get a hard interrupt then the return from >> that would process any softints), we probably make out just fine >> anyways. As long as we hit a local_bh_enable() (and in the return >> path from device transmit that's exceedingly likely as all of the >> networking locking is BH safe) we'll run the softints from that and >> thus long before we get to syscall return. > > What about the issue I raised earlier? (I don't think you were copied > at that point.) I'm sure all of the networking experts on linuxppc-dev will have an answer. And yes that was sarcasm :-) You need to ask this on netdev or similar list.