Re: Real-Time Preemption and UML?

[Ingo Molnar]

* Esben Nielsen <simlo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, I keep trying a little bit more. In the mean while you can get
> some of the stuff I needed to change to at least get it to compile:
> 
> One of the problems was use of direct architecture specific semaphores
> (which doesn't work under PREEMPT_REALTIME) and in places where a
> quick (maybe too quick) look at the code told me that completions
> ought to be used. Therefore I changed two semaphores to completions
> which compiled fine. I have tried the change on 2.6.11-rc2, and it
> seemed to work, but I have not tested it heavily.

Jeff, any objections against adding this change to UML at some point? 
It's at most a cleanup for now (PREEMPT_RT not being an upstream
feature), but it makes life easier if 'more exotic' semaphore details
are not being relied on (even if that reliance is 100% correct
currently).

	Ingo
-
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/