On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 14:39, David S. Miller wrote:
> I hadn't considered this, good idea. I'm trying this out right now.
I hope it works. I have a sinking feeling we call it some places that
may have interrupts disabled...
> Someone should backport the might_sleep() stuff to 2.4.x, it's very
> useful.
Would be nice, but for the maximum effect we need kernel preemption
(which keeps track of atomicity via preempt_count). I doubt we want to
go there for 2.4.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
