On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:16:08PM +1000, matthew green wrote: > > > > > > I see no reason to capitulate and drop the original naming, refreshed > > > for the current kernel design in favor of some invented linuxism. > > > > You're going to cause massive confusion if you write documentation > > intended for kernel beginners that uses the terms "top half" and > > "bottom half" to mean something different than Linux means. Like it or > > not, the Linux use of these terms is the prevalent one and has been for > > a decade or more. > > this is not my experience -- but this only makes me conclude that > we should avoid using these terms entirely and use other ones that > are either self-describing or something we can easily declare a > definition of that doesn't conflict with others. define a set of > properties in a context-type (can block, can be preempted, etc.) > and then define the various contexts upon these.
concur, for what it's worth. I have heard "high kernel" and "low kernel", not that I particularly like these terms; but they're at least different and the provenance chain of where I've heard them doesn't include any penguins. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
