Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86: Move cond resched for copy_{from,to}_userinto low level code 64bit

[Andi Kleen]

> Most of this series looks fine, but I really think that we
> could/should just take that extra step, and say "no, user accesses
> don't imply that we need to check for scheduling".

Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE?

Need to check how many other reschedule tests are left then for VOLUNTARY.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/