On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:20:57PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> ty den 05.04.2005 Klokka 11:46 (-0400) skreiv Benjamin LaHaise:
>
> > I can see that goal, but I don't think introducing iosems is the right
> > way to acheive it. Instead (and I'll start tackling this), how about
> > factoring out the existing semaphore implementations to use a common
> > lib/semaphore.c, much like lib/rwsem.c? The iosems can be used as a
> > basis for the implementation, but we can avoid having to do a giant
> > s/semaphore/iosem/g over the kernel tree.
>
> If you're willing to take this on then you have my full support and I'd
> be happy to lend a hand.
I would expect also that some RT subgroups would be highly interested in
getting it to respect priority for reworking parts of softirq.
bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
