On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jeff Dike wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > Jeff, any objections against adding this change to UML at some point? > > No, not at all. I just need to understand what CONFIG_PREEMPT requires of > UML.
Ingo can probably tell you in much more detail. My problem when I tried to compile with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (not CONFIG_PREEMPT!) was that __SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER didn't exist since the architecture specific semaphore.h is not included in that configuration. The reason again is that locking (not completions) is changed a lot under CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT to introduce muteces instead of raw spinlocks and priority inheritance to make these lockings behave deterministicly. > > >From a quick read of Documentation/preempt-locking.txt, this looks like it's > implementing Rule #3 (unlock by the same task that locked), which looks fine. > Now I don't really know who I am responding to. But both up()s now changed to complete()s are in something looking very much like an interrupt handler. But again, as I said, I didn't analyze the code in detail, I just made it compile and checked that it worked in bare 2.6.11-rc2 UML - which I am not too sure how to set up and use to begin with! > Jeff > Esben - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
