Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed
> > preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the
> > BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the
> > BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections
> Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed
> preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the
> BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the
> BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don't require this.
The BKL
Jason Wohlgemuth wrote:
>
> In an effort to stay consistent with the community, I migrated some code
> to a driver to use the daemonize() routine in the function specified by
> the kernel_thread() call.
>
> However, in looking at a few drivers in the system (drivers/usb/hub.c ,
>
Jason Wohlgemuth wrote:
In an effort to stay consistent with the community, I migrated some code
to a driver to use the daemonize() routine in the function specified by
the kernel_thread() call.
However, in looking at a few drivers in the system (drivers/usb/hub.c ,
drivers/md/md.c,
Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed
preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the
BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the
BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don't require this.
The BKL is
Alan Cox wrote:
Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed
preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the
BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the
BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don't
6 matches
Mail list logo