From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 20:32:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 20:32:35 -0500 Received: from mx1.afara.com ([63.113.218.20]:57748 "EHLO afara-gw.afara.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 20:32:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3C802B9B.5FA7058E@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:32:11 -0800 From: Ethan Solomita X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-SGI_XFS_1.0.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: local_bh_disable vs. local_irq_disable: hierarchical? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2002 01:32:11.0558 (UTC) FILETIME=[133E4460:01C1C18A] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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