On 17 Sep 2002, Robert Love wrote:
> Now, remind me why this is all worth it...
having preemption support that 1) is correct 2) works?
We *must* use the schedule() check to debug preemption bugs, or we wont
have usable preemption in 2.6, i dont really understand why your are not
happy that we have such a great tool. In fact we should also add other
debugging bits, like 'check for !0 preemption count in smp_processor_id()'
, and the underflow checks that caught the IDE bug. These are all bits
that help the elimination of preemption bugs which are also often SMP
bugs, on plain UP boxes.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
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 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:18 EST