On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 12:09:46AM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 04:52:20PM -0500, Kapoor, Pankaj wrote:
> > Now there are 2 cases that can happen
> > 1. Since we have not exited the ISR and the exception level has still not
> > been restored there can be no more interrupts that are generated in the
> > system. In such a case does that mean that the all bottom half handlers
> > pending execution will run with interrupts disabled.
> > NOTE: This does not seem likely because the local_irq_enable routine
> > calls _sti which clears the exception level in the status register and
> > also sets the IE bit.
> > 2. If we have large number of tasklets or if the bottom half handlers take
> > time to execute, then we could get another timer interrupt or other
> > device interrupts causing context saves which would cause the stack to
> > grow and CRASH the system.
> Interrupts are disabled while the respective interrupt handler is running.
They are re-enabled for "bottom halves", i.e., in do_softirq(). I think
that is what the sender is worrying about.