Ah yes, I suppose this is because TUX uses per-cpu data as a replacement
for spinlocks. Patches that use per-cpu shared data have to be
preempt-aware. Ingo didn't know this when he wrote TUX since preempt didn't
exist at that time and didn't even appear to be on the horizon. He's
certainly aware of it now.
> OTOH the low latency patch plays quite well
> with tux. As said, I have no anti-preempt agenda,
> I just need for whatever solution I use to work,
> and not crash programs and services we use.
Right, and of course that requires testing - sometimes a lot of it. This one
is a 'duh' that escaped notice. temporarily. It probably would have been
caught sooner if we'd started serious testing/discussion sooner.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/