![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi, 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||