From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp1.cybersurf.net ([209.197.145.111]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 153KyC-0000R3-00 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:01:49 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([209.197.132.58]) by smtp1.cybersurf.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GDWI5W00.89H for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 11:05:56 -0600 From: Herman Oosthuysen To: "linux-mtd@lists.infrared.org" Subject: Re: Why timer interrupt is disabled? Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:06:11 -0600 Content-Type: text/plain References: <3B0EF62E.30207@niisi.msk.ru> <25506.990803856@redhat.com> <1765.990808662@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1765.990808662@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01052511093801.00873@localhost.localdomain> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Fri, 25 May 2001, David Woodhouse wrote: > The kernel is not preemptively scheduled. Unless the first process > explicitly calls schedule(), it's not going to lose the CPU. Only processes > in user mode are scheduled from the timer IRQ. Is it not dangerous to assume that the kernel is non-preemptive? MTD is after all most likely to be used in a real-time system, which may very well have a different scheduler from the common/garden variety Linux. Cheers, -- Herman Oosthuysen Phone: 403+569-5687 E-mail: Herman@WirelessNetworksInc.com