>Yes, it does, but only if you run the process with SCHED_RR or
>SCHED_FIFO. And this is dangerous. If the process hangs (maybe because
>of a buggy endless loop), wo can't even kill it, because the process
>will use up all of your CPU, and you cannot type something (unless you
>have a shell running with SCHED_RR and a higher static priority than the
Well, you could introduce a new scheduling policy that has the realtime
behaviour for nanosleep but behaves like SCHED_OTHER in all other respects.
That seems like a better solution than adding wacky stuff to ppdev.
Or, run as SCHED_OTHER most of the time but promote yourself to SCHED_RR when
you are actually doing port I/O. That should remove most of the risk from
infinite loops caused by bugs.
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 17 2001 - 06:02:01 EST