Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm2

[Peter Williams]

Paul Davis wrote:
>   [ the best solution is .... ]
>
>   [ my preferred solution is ... ]
>
>   [ it would be better if ... ]
>
>   [ this is a kludge and it should be done instead like ... ]
>
> did nobody read what andrew wrote and what JOQ pointed out?
>
> after weeks of debating this, no other conceptual solution emerged
> that did not have at least as many problems as the RT LSM module, and
> all other proposed solutions were also more invasive of other aspects
> of kernel design and operations than RT LSM is.

As I see it, what I said was in support of RT LSM (or at least the 
approach that RT LSM is taking) so why are you attacking me.  I'm on 
your side :-)

Peter
PS I'm withdrawing the "unprivileged real time" feature from the 
spa_no_frills and zaphod schedulers in the PlugSched patch as a result 
of the discussions on SCHED_ISO and RT rlimits because the discussion 
convinced me that it's the wrong way to go.
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
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/