On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 21:25, David S. Miller wrote:
> Ummm what is with all of those switch_mm() hacks? Is this an attempt
> to work around the locking problems? Please don't do that as it is
> going to kill performance and having ifdef sparc64 sched.c changes is
> ugly to say the least.
>
> Ingo posted the correct fix to the locking problem with the patch
> he posted the other day, that is what should go into the -ac patches.
I am explicitly refraining from sending Alan any code that is not
well-tested in 2.5 and my machines first. As Ingo's new switch_mm()
bits are not even in 2.5 yet, I plan to wait a bit before sending
them... (I am currently putting together all the scheduler bits we have
been working on for a 2.4-ac patch...)
If you like, Alan can hold off on this and take it when the appropriate
patches are in.
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 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:32 EST