Re: 2.4.19-preX: What we really need: -AA patches finally in the

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> > or (c) have proponents of the inclusion of the O(1) scheduler
> > fix all drivers before having the O(1) scheduler considered
> > for inclusion.
> >
> > Adding a yield() function to 2.4's scheduler and fixing all
> > the drivers to use it isn't that hard. Now all that's needed
> > are some O(1) fans willing to do the grunt work.
>
> That sounds very nice, but in practice it means it would never happen,
> and you know it.

If you send the patch, it'll happen.  If you don't have the
motivation to send the patch and nobody else has either, then
it won't happen.

> First you have to patch the existing scheduler.

Not at all. The yield() function would just be a define to
the code which no longer works with the new scheduler, ie:

#define yield()				\
	current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD;	\
	schedule();

> Aside from the work on something which we are about to discard, the
> patch would have to go through the maintainer, and the the submitter,

> If we could get a dispensation from Linus to submit one patch combining
> the scheduler and all the drivers, it could be done (almost mechanically).

You can send marcelo such a patch (without the scheduler) right
now.

You're making absolutely no sense when you're saying that a patch
without the O(1) scheduler would have to go through the maintainers
while a patch with the O(1) scheduler included could go into the
kernel directly.

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/