On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 14:38 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > And this is something that might be fine for benchmarking, but not something
> > > we should put in. Keeping two wildly different implementation of core
> > > functionality with very different behaviour around is quite bad. Better
> > > kill tasklets once for all.
> >
> > Honestly, I highly doubted that this would make it up to Linus's tree.
>
> that's where it belongs - but it first needs the cleanups suggested by
> Christoph.
I had the impression that he didn't want it in, but instead wanted each
driver to be changed separately.
>
> > My aim was to get this into -mm, [...]
>
> that would be the first step towards getting it upstream.
>
> > and perhaps even turn on the tasklets-as-workqueues as default.
>
> that is a hack that shouldnt be in the patch. People can unapply/apply a
> patch just as well as they can flip a .config switch.
So should the patch be then to not even have the tasklet_softirq there
at all? Have the patch simply replace the tasklets with workqueues, and
if someone doesn't like that, then they can simply remove the patch?
-- Steve
-
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]
