From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:50:19 -0800
Message-ID: <20050118135019.068ff57a.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <200501141129.21461.dsp@llnl.gov>
	<200501180935.25419.dsp@llnl.gov>
	<20050118124100.17b7f47a.davem@davemloft.net>
	<200501181346.22905.dsp@llnl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, robert.olsson@its.uu.se, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov>
In-Reply-To: <200501181346.22905.dsp@llnl.gov>
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:46:22 -0800
Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov> wrote:

> > Since when does do_softirq() need preemption disabled
> > around calls to it?
> >
> > do_softirq() disabled hard IRQs during the duration of it's
> > execution, thus effectively disabling preemption.
> >
> > What is the problematic case again?
> 
> Oops... My mistake.  Looking at __do_softirq() I noticed that it enables
> interrupts before executing the softirqs.  However I didn't notice that
> the call to local_bh_disable() in __do_softirq() disables preemption
> before interrupts are enabled.  On second thought everything looks OK
> and no bug fix is needed.

Great, looks like things are OK then.