>> Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
>> mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE?
>
> According the the Kconfig help, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is about the
> *explicit* preemption points. And we do have a lot of them in
> "might_sleep()".
>
> And personally, I think it makes a *lot* more sense to have a
> "might_sleep()" in the MM allocators than it does to have it in
> copy_from_user().
AFAIK, MM allocation already does that.
struct page *
__alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
struct zonelist *zonelist, nodemask_t *nodemask)
{
(snip)
might_sleep_if(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT);
btw, Sorry for the very late response. I haven't noticed this thread.
--
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/
