Its a fix, sure. But it also complicates kernel scheduling to the
point that future scheduling extensions will become very
difficult.
Also, "any form of lock" is a bit loose. Do we mean a "real" lock as
implemented by down()/up(), and which includes the appropriate
condition-waiting code, or spinlocks too, which provide no support for
the
lock();
schedule();
unlock();
model ?
--p
-
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/