On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> But it's the same story: the requirements of
>
> a) non blocking local IO daemon and
>
> b) assured pagecache takedown
>
> are conflicting. You need at least one more thread, and locking
> against userspace activity.
I see no problem with adding another thread to handle the breaks.
Only the cost of an extra thread and the fact that smbiod was originally
created to handle the break (with a thought to eventually make it do the
IO as it does now) makes me want to put it in smbiod.
/Urban
-
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 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:36 EST