Gregory Maxwell <greg@linuxpower.cx> writes:
> On 1 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > <quote>
> > For example, let's say that something uses an O(n^3) algorithm, and
> > to "overcome" the expense of this thing we add scheduling points in it.
> > That's the easy way to do it. But maybe the right thing to do is to
> > realize that the code may be badly structured in the first place?
> > </quote>
> >
> > The low latency patch only add scheduling point all over the place.
>
[...]
>
> As I understand it, Linuses goal is to provided a useful and mailtainable
> system.
Yop, he don't want to accept hackish code when something clean can be done.
> He's has decided that he wants to make it useful for audio tasks
> and he's willing to impliment rechedule hacks where there is no
> alternative (i.e. no complexity reduction can be performed).
Right, but that isn't only audio task,
think to video (especially dvd) and i'm sure their is other.
-- -- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ product don't make a free() after a malloc(), the unix community wish them good luck for their future development.- 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 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:09 EST