On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 14:39, David S. Miller wrote: > I hadn't considered this, good idea. I'm trying this out right now. I hope it works. I have a sinking feeling we call it some places that may have interrupts disabled... > Someone should backport the might_sleep() stuff to 2.4.x, it's very > useful. Would be nice, but for the maximum effect we need kernel preemption (which keeps track of atomicity via preempt_count). I doubt we want to go there for 2.4. Robert Love - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
