Re: 2.4.7 softirq incorrectness.

[Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>]

Hello!

> The first netif_rx is required to run from interrupt handler 

No! netif_rx() is called from _any_ context. Check with grep.
So, this must be repaired in some way.

Actually, assumption that local_bh_enable() etc does not happen
with disabled irq was the biggest hole in Ingo's patch: all the functions
ever doing local_irq_save() assume that they _can_ be called with
disabled irqs (otherwise they would make local_irq_disable() instead)
and, hence, some spinlocks held.



> for the next interrupt (in old 2.4 kernels you had to wait for the next
> irq instead).

Well, not "had to", a small delay was purpose of this call yet.
Actually, now it can be replaced with a direct schedule ksoftirqd,
because we surely have softirq flood, when this place is reached.

Alexey