Re: RT patch acceptance

[Duncan Sands]

> Yes, as Ingo stated many times, addition cond_resched() to
> might_sleep() does achieve the "usable" latencies  -- and obviously
> that's hacky.
> 
> So, the only question is whether changing (inserting) cond_resched()
> to all points would be acceptable even if it results in a big amount
> of changes...

Or change (almost) all calls to might_sleep() into calls to
cond_reched(), and put a might_sleep() inside cond_reched().

Ciao,

D.

-
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/