> When I first saw the problem in tty_ioctl.c, Linus said that because the
> driver was setting TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE it will not get the CPU back
> anyway (until the wait queue responds in that particular case). In the
> cases I have just changed, the driver won't get the CPU back until the
> timeout expires in schedule_timeout(). Once the timeout expires, why on
> earth would we want the driver to be low-priority? I'm not saying
> that's impossible, just that I don't see a reason - do feel encouraged
> to put me straight ;-)
ah, ok, i didnt know that this is a _bug_ :) I thought you suspect some
changed behavior related to recentish scheduler changes, but it isnt. i
think these then are all longstanding bugs, i guess for 2.0 too.
-- mingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/