[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.19-preX: What we really need: -AA patches finally in the tree
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; \
> 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

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.


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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean