Gregory, Ingo, On 08/06, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 08/01, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 02:22 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > No, > > > > > > You sure are a confident one ;) > > > > Yeah, this is a rare case when I am very sure I am right ;) > > > > I strongly believe you guys take a _completely_ wrong approach. > > queue_work() should _not_ take the priority of the caller into > > account, this is bogus. > > Oleg, i'd like to make it sure that the role of Gregory Haskins is clear > here: he submitted some new infrastructure into the -rt tree, and i > reviewed that but found it quite complex and duplicative and suggested > him to think about enhancing workqueues with priority properties - which > might or might not make sense. > > It is not the intention of the -rt project to pester any upstream > maintainer with -rt issues if that upstream maintainer is not interested > in it ... so please just forget about all this if you are not interested > in it, we'll sort it out within -rt. Thanks,
I am not trying to sabotage these changes, and I am sorry if it looked that way. I jumped into this discuassion because both patches I saw (Daniel's and Gregory's) were very wrong technically. Yes, I still disagree with the whole idea because I hope we can make something more simpler to solve the problem, but I must admit I don't quite understand what the problem is. So, please consider a noise from my side as my attempt to help. And in fact, I am very curious about -rt tree, just I never had a time to study it :) Oleg. - 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/
