"J.A. Magallon" wrote:
>
> On 20020114 Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> >
> >Hm, obviously the ll-patches look simple, but their pure required number makes
> >me think they are as well stupid as simple. This whole story looks like making
> >an old mac do real multitasking, just spread around scheduling points
>
> Yup. That remind me of...
> Would there be any kernel call every driver is doing just to hide there
> a conditional_schedule() so everyone does it even without knowledge of it ?
> Just like Apple put the SystemTask() inside GetNextEvent()...
Well the preempt patch sort of does this in every spin_unlock*() .....
-
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 - 21:00:45 EST