viro@math.psu.edu said:
> OK, folks - current bunch of changes looks rather interesting from
> the scalability point of view, but it means changes in 3rd-party code.
> Doing it during the 2.4 is obviously not an option and postponing to
> 2.5 looks like an overkill since changes are massive but very simple.
Does this mean we want to kill sleep_on() in 2.4 too, rather than waiting
till 2.5? I understood that the main reason for keeping it was because
filesystem code still uses it, and it's valid because filesystem code always
holds the BKL.
-- dwmw2- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:16 EST