On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 21:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Yes, the following patch makes iperf work better than ever. > > But are other broken applications going to have same problem. > > Sounds like the old "who runs first" fork() problems. > > Not really. The fork() "who runs first" problem is nowhere specified. > > usleep(0) is well defined: > > .... If the value of useconds is 0, then the call has no effect. > > So the call into the kernel has been wrong for quite a time. > Just for clarification: I'm not saying that we should break the (broken) user space ABI. I'm going to work out a patch which prints out a warning (limited number per boot) and emulating the old behavior by a call to yield() along with an entry into (mis)feature-removal.txt. tglx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
