On Fri, 2001-09-07 at 01:35, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Sorry, I thought that was self-evident. It's not a change, it's an option.
Oh, yes. It is completely an option -- although I would like to see it
be the norm :)
> Yes, violent agreement. OK, I disagree with your assessment that it's
> a huge change. Big in effect yes, but not in structural impact.
Right, actually I agree with you. That was my point about using SMP
lock points. Since it uses the existing structure for SMP concurrency,
the patch is small -- but its effects are pretty large. Its a fairly
big deal.
> And you're right, I did think you were arguing against your own patch.
No, but I had to take that approach as it was suggested the patch be
merged for 2.4.10!
I am glad you take a pro side to the preemption issue. Hopefully I can
get some continued support and see some work towards inclusion in 2.5.
Any help is appreciated.
Sorry for the confusion.
-- Robert M. Love rml at ufl.edu rml at tech9.net- 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 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 21:00:39 EST