On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 09:12:38AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So I disagree with your notion that it's a recursion flag. It is > absolutely nothing of the sort. OK, agreed. I had it classed under recursion in my head, clearly I indexed it sloppily. In any case I have a patch that kills off PREEMPT_ACTIVE entirely. I just have to clean it up, benchmark, split and write changelogs. But it should be forthcoming 'soon'. As is, it boots.. > It gets set by preemption - and, > somewhat illogically, by cond_resched(). I suspect that was done to make cond_resched() (voluntary preemption) more robust and only have a single preemption path/logic. But all that was done well before I got involved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
