Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:13:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:12:57 -0500 Received: from hq.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.197]:35601 "EHLO hq.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:12:50 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:10:06 -0700 From: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com To: Roman Zippel Cc: Alan Cox , Robert Love , Kenneth Johansson , arjan@fenrus.demon.nl, Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable Message-ID: <20020113171006.A17958@hq.fsmlabs.com> In-Reply-To: <3C41ED4E.4D3F2D2C@linux-m68k.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <3C41ED4E.4D3F2D2C@linux-m68k.org>; from zippel@linux-m68k.org on Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 09:25:50PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 09:25:50PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > I don't doubt that, but would you seriously consider the ll patch for > inclusion into the main kernel? > It's a useful patch for anyone, who needs good latencies now, but it's > still a quick&dirty solution. Preempt offers a clean solution for a > certain part of the problem, as it's possible to cleanly localize the > needed changes for preemption (at least for UP). That means the ll patch > becomes smaller and future work on ll becomes simpler, since a certain That is exactly what Andrew Morton disputes. So why do you think he is wrong? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/