On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 13:02 +0900, Samuel Masham wrote:
> On 26/01/06, Samuel Masham <[email protected]> wrote:
> > comment:
> > As a rt person I don't like the idea of scheduler bounce so the way
> > round seems to be have the mutex lock acquiring work on a FIFO like
> > basis.
>
> which is obviously wrong...
>
> Howeve my basic point stands but needs to be clarified a bit:
>
> I think I can print non-compliant if the mutex acquisition doesn't
> respect the higher priority of the waiter over the current process
> even if the mutex is "available".
>
> OK?
I don't think using an optional feature (PI) counts...
Lee
-
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]
