> Most of this series looks fine, but I really think that we > could/should just take that extra step, and say "no, user accesses > don't imply that we need to check for scheduling".
Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE? Need to check how many other reschedule tests are left then for VOLUNTARY. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
