Re: [RFC] Rename _bh to _softirq

["Maksim (Max) Krasnyanskiy" <maxk@qualcomm.com>]

At 09:21 PM 10/14/2002 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Maksim (Max) Krasnyanskiy wrote:
>
> > Old BHs have been almost completely replaced with tasklets and softirqs.
> > Should we then rename _bh to _softirq ?
> > i.e
> >          local_bh_disable()      ->      local_softirq_disable()
> >          spin_lock_bh()          ->      spin_lock_softirq()
> >          bh_lock_sock()          ->      softirq_sock_lock()
> >          etc
>
>i wanted to do this as part of the irqlock cleanups, but generally we dont
>change existing interfaces unless it's really universally agreed upon. Eg.
>we had cli() around for a *long* time although it's an x86 (-mostly)
>instruction name. But yes, i agree, and there are a number of other
>renames that would make perfect sense.

We can keep compatibility defines, just like we have for cli().
i.e.
         #define local_bh_disable local_softirq_disable

Max