On Mon, 11 May 2015 19:33:06 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:27:44AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 11 May 2015 10:19:16 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:57:59AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > > > NO_HZ_LEAVE_ME_THE_FSCK_ALONE! > > > > > > NO_HZ_OVERFLOWING? > > > > Actually, "NO_HZ" shouldn't appear in the name at all. The objective > > is to permit userspace to execute without interruption. NO_HZ is a > > part of that, as is NO_INTERRUPTS. The "NO_HZ" thing is a historical > > artifact from an early partial implementation. > > Agreed! Which is why I'd rather advocate in favour of CONFIG_ISOLATION. Then we should have CONFIG_LEAVE_ME_THE_FSCK_ALONE. Hmm, I guess that's just an synonym for CONFIG_ISOLATION. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
