Robin Holt wrote: >> an hurry like we are, we can't progress without this. Infact we can >> > > SGI is under an equally strict timeline. We really needed the sleeping > version into 2.6.26. We may still be able to get this accepted by > vendor distros if we make 2.6.27. >
The difference is that the non-sleeping variant can be shown not to affect stability or performance, even if configed in, as long as its not used. The sleeping variant will raise performance and stability concerns. I have zero objections to sleeping mmu notifiers; I only object to tying the schedules of the two together. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
