Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:26:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:25:42 -0400 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]:30624 "EHLO numenor.qualcomm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:18:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021015150438.051d52d8@mail1.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:09:36 -0700 To: Ingo Molnar , "David S. Miller" From: "Maksim (Max) Krasnyanskiy" Subject: Re: [RFC] Rename _bh to _softirq Cc: , In-Reply-To: References: <20021015.131929.103080718.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1121 Lines: 34 > > "base handler" and "bottom half" all refer to an execution context, > > and these days that means softirq. > >i think i agree with you. > >- we have 'top half' contexts, which are also called 'hardirqs'. > >- then we have 'bottom half' contexts, which are also called 'softirqs'. > >the fact that 'bottom halves' used to be an earlier concept that had a >slightly different meaning from 'softirqs' for a limited amount of time >does not remove from the meaningfulness of the naming itself. Today >'bottom halves' and 'softirqs' are the same thing. I still think we should rename _bh thing :). At least for consistent naming. We have things like: in_softirq() do_softirq() sofirq_pending() and local_bh_disable() local_bh_enable() Anyway, I'll go ahead and shut up :). Most people didn't seem to like that proposal :(. Max - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/