yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> > It's a useful patch for anyone, who needs good latencies now, but it's
> > still a quick&dirty solution. Preempt offers a clean solution for a
> > certain part of the problem, as it's possible to cleanly localize the
> > needed changes for preemption (at least for UP). That means the ll patch
> > becomes smaller and future work on ll becomes simpler, since a certain
>
> That is exactly what Andrew Morton disputes. So why do you think he is
> wrong?
Please explain, what do you mean?
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/