> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:59:28 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bottom line: we've had a _lot_ of problems with the new yield() semantics. > > We effectively broke back-compatibility by changing its behaviour a lot, > > and we can't really turn around and blame application developers for that. > > So... I would take it that's a yes for a recommendation with respect to > implementing a new yield() ? A new scheduler is as good a time as any to do > it.
I guess so. We'd, err, need to gather Ingo's input ;) Perhaps a suitable way of doing this would be to characterise then emulate the 2.4 behaviour. As long as it turns out to be vaguely sensible. - 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/