On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:41:35AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
>
> > > It's a useful patch for anyone, who needs good latencies now, but it's
> > > still a quick&dirty solution. Preempt offers a clean solution for a
> > > certain part of the problem, as it's possible to cleanly localize the
> > > needed changes for preemption (at least for UP). That means the ll patch
> > > becomes smaller and future work on ll becomes simpler, since a certain
> >
> > That is exactly what Andrew Morton disputes. So why do you think he is
> > wrong?
>
> Please explain, what do you mean?
I mean, that these conversations are not very useful if you don't
read what the other people write.
Here's a prior response by Andrew to a post by you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:43 EST