![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 2002-01-12 at 14:00, Alan Cox wrote: > I see absolutely _no_ evidence to support this repeated claim. I'm still > waiting to see any evidence that low latency patches are not sufficient, or > an explanation of who is going to fix all the drivers you break in subtle > ways I'll work on fixing things the patch breaks. I don't think it will be that bad. I've been working on preemption for a long long time, and before me others have been working for a long long time, and I just don't see the hordes of broken drivers or the tons of race-conditions due to per-CPU data. I have seen some, and I have fixed them. For a solution to latency concerns, I'd much prefer to lay a framework down that provides a proper solution and then work on fine tuning the kernel to get the desired latency out of it. Robert Love - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||