# Re: BUG or not? GFP\_KERNEL with interrupts disabled.

- From: Trond Myklebust \<hidden\>
- Date: 2003-03-27 14:10:17 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2003/03/537774
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/lkml/2003/03/537766/t.md

```text
>>>>> " " == David S Miller [ref] writes:

     >    From: shmulik.hen@intel.com Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:32:02
     >    +0200 (IST)

     >    Further more, holding a lock_irq doesn't mean bottom halves
     >    are disabled too, it just means interrupts are disabled and
     >    no *new* softirq can be queued. Consider the following
     >    situation:
   
     > I think local_bh_enable() should check irqs_disabled() and
     > honour that.  What you are showing here, that BH's can run via
     > local_bh_enable() even when IRQs are disabled, is a BUG().

     > IRQ disabling is meant to be stronger than softint disabling.

In that case, you'll need to have things like spin_lock_irqrestore()
call local_bh_enable() in order to run the pending softirqs. Is that
worth the trouble?

Cheers,
  Trond
```