* local_bh_disable vs. local_irq_disable: hierarchical?
@ 2002-03-02 1:32 Ethan Solomita
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Ethan Solomita @ 2002-03-02 1:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
My straightforward question: If code has called local_irq_disable, does
this guarantee that a bottom half handler cannot run?
I'm looking for a statement on semantics. I've tried to hunt
documentation in many forms. None of them imply that disabling irqs
would also disable bottom halves. It might just be me, but I have a
strong sense that disabling interrupts is a stronger statement than
disabling bottom halves.
However I don't want to trust my instincts for this. I am looking for a
clear statement on the Linux definitions. And I am not asking this
question just to satisfy some curiosity -- there is an underlying
problem I'm hoping to put to rest.
Thanks!
-- Ethan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2002-03-02 1:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-03-02 1:32 local_bh_disable vs. local_irq_disable: hierarchical? Ethan Solomita
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®