Prev: softirq: avoid softirq_work_list for SCHED_SOFTIRQ when sent remotely
Next: btrfs: should add a permission check for setfacl
From: Jens Axboe on 20 May 2010 04:30
On Thu, May 20 2010, David Miller wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org>
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:12:39 +0200
>
> > Most odd all that, Dave, Jens, what happened to all that remote_softirq
> > stuff?
>
> Nobody ended up using this remote softirq infrastructure, it can be
> completely deleted.

What parts of it? There has been reworks of parts of the code since I
added it, the block layer only uses __smp_call_function_single() to
trigger remote softirqs.

--
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: softirq: avoid softirq_work_list for SCHED_SOFTIRQ when sent remotely
Next: btrfs: should add a permission check for setfacl