From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:17:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:17:24 -0400 Received: from minus.inr.ac.ru ([193.233.7.97]:61193 "HELO ms2.inr.ac.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:17:16 -0400 From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Message-Id: <200106201816.WAA19499@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Subject: Re: softirq in pre3 and all linux ports To: paulus@samba.org Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:16:46 +0400 (MSK DST) Cc: andrea@suse.de, torvalds@transmeta.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <15152.6527.366544.713462@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> from "Paul Mackerras" at Jun 20, 1 01:33:19 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! > Soft irqs should definitely not be much heavier than an irq handler, > if they are then we have implemented them wrongly somehow. For example, all the networking nicely fits to this class. :-) Alexey