On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 19:50, Alan Cox wrote:
> Do you want a clean simple solution or complex elegance ? For 2.4 I definitely
> favour clean and simple. For 2.5 its an open debate
Make no mistake, I do not intend to see preempt-kernel in 2.4. I will,
however, continue to maintain the patch for endusers and such that use
it. A proper in-kernel solution for 2.4 in my opinion in mini-ll,
perhaps extend with any other obviously-completely-utterly sane bits
from full-ll.
For 2.5, however, I tout preempt as the answer. This does not mean just
preempt. It means a preemptible kernel as a basis for beginning
low-latency works in manners other than explicit scheduling statements.
Robert Love
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:43 EST