At 09:21 PM 10/14/2002 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Maksim (Max) Krasnyanskiy wrote:
>
> > Old BHs have been almost completely replaced with tasklets and softirqs.
> > Should we then rename _bh to _softirq ?
> > i.e
> > local_bh_disable() -> local_softirq_disable()
> > spin_lock_bh() -> spin_lock_softirq()
> > bh_lock_sock() -> softirq_sock_lock()
> > etc
>
>i wanted to do this as part of the irqlock cleanups, but generally we dont
>change existing interfaces unless it's really universally agreed upon. Eg.
>we had cli() around for a *long* time although it's an x86 (-mostly)
>instruction name. But yes, i agree, and there are a number of other
>renames that would make perfect sense.
We can keep compatibility defines, just like we have for cli().
i.e.
#define local_bh_disable local_softirq_disable
Max
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:51 EST