* Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't tested it recently . This was on an older version of RT > though . I could try it if it's interesting ? Or do you think it's > already fixed? it would be definitely interesting to see how robust the latest IO-APIC code is. Ingo - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
- Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- References:
- Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- From: Karsten Wiese <[email protected]>
- Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
- Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
- Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] s390: fadvise hint values.
- Next by Date: Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- Previous by thread: Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- Next by thread: Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24
- Index(es):
