Re: [PATCH] Replace timer_bh with tasklet

From: Matthew Wilcox (willy@debian.org)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 12:12:19 EST

Next message: Robert Love: "Re: Question about sched_yield()"
Previous message: Adam J. Richter: "Re: Various kbuild problems in 2.5.22"
In reply to: george anzinger: "Re: [PATCH] Replace timer_bh with tasklet"
Next in thread: george anzinger: "Re: [PATCH] Replace timer_bh with tasklet"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:01:19AM -0700, george anzinger wrote:
> Could you elaborate on the reason for the above bit of
> code? Is it to cover some thing from the past or is this an
> on going issue? I.e. will this disappear soon? Is its
> usage dependent on a particular driver?

The comment says:
/* Deliver skb to an old protocol, which is not threaded well
or which do not understand shared skbs.
*/

so it's nothing to do with drivers, but old protocols (like SNA, I guess).

Why did you decide to use a softirq for timers rather than a tasklet?

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Robert Love: "Re: Question about sched_yield()"
Previous message: Adam J. Richter: "Re: Various kbuild problems in 2.5.22"
In reply to: george anzinger: "Re: [PATCH] Replace timer_bh with tasklet"
Next in thread: george anzinger: "Re: [PATCH] Replace timer_bh with tasklet"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 23 2002 - 22:00:16 EST