>
>On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > >
>> > > while ((active = get_active_bhs()) {
>
>how about .... __sti(); ?
>
>> > > clear_active_bhs(active);
Yes that' the right place for the __sti(). After reading the active bhs
and before clearing them. Also remove the __sti and __cli() from the
caller.
>> > > ...
>>
>> ++ __cli();
This must be done before closing the brace.
>Or was the __sti() left out intentionally to help prevent DOS
>attacks?
No, only the loop (without __sti() and __cli() at all) can generate
starvation.
Andrea
-
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/