On Wed, 17 May 2000, Ivan Passos wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > Uhh, backport all the 2.2.x kernel changes? Or just rename '2.2'
> > to '2.0' and have yourself a ball? Is there a reason you don't just upgrade to
> > a stable 2.2.x kernel?
>
> Actually I'm not a user, I'm developing a synchronous card driver, and I
> wanted to support the 2.0.x, 2.2.x and 2.3.x (and, thus, future 2.4.x)
> kernels. However, after I found this problem, I'd like to know if this is
> something possible to solve in driver level or if it's inherent to the 2.0
> kernel series.
I believe alot of it has to do w/ more granular kernel locks and
other locks elsewhere being handled better. I think that's something of a
whole-kernel improvement issue than just something simple in the drivers.
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST