> Or a mechanism to say "don't run BH when I'm done". Having
> SA_INTERRUPT=0 in 2.1.x or 2.3.x would be safe if we can throttle BH
> processing, right?
I don't need either of them for myself personally. But the talks over the
net_bh make it apparrent that something needs to be done. But, in those
cases, I think the end result was throttling the actual interrupt, not the
bottom half stuff.
> Erm, I assume you mean "new_bh"? Or is "new_eh" something I've missed?
The new SCSI error handling code. hostt->use_new_eh is the key variable
that signals a driver should use the new error handling code, hence I call
it the new_eh code.
> Ah, OK. So do you feel that a mechanism in BH processing to
> self-throttle is a good approach?
> If so, a patch for 2.3.x may turn up...
I was under the impression that the discussion here had lead more to the
conclusion that the code needs to throttle the actual interrupts, not the
bottom half stuff.
--Doug Ledford <dledford@dialnet.net> Opinions expressed are my own, but they should be everybody's.
- 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/