Gregory, Ingo,

On 08/06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> 
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> 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.

-
unsubscribe notice
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/