On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 19:41, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > That is exactly what Andrew Morton disputes. So why do you think he is
> > wrong?
Victor is saying that Andrew contends the hard parts of his low-latency
patch are just as hard to maintain with a preemptive kernel. This is
true, for the places where spinlocks are held anyway, but it assumes we
continue to treat lock breaking and explicit scheduling as our only
solution. It isn't under a preemptible kernel.
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