Re: copy to user

[(no name)]

> If you put the process in (un)interruptible sleep in the kernel, won't this
> be enough?  This is different than SIGSTOP.  Is the requirement that this
> process not leave the kernel call, or that it is actually consuming CPU
> cycles as well?

The process needs to be using CPU time, however, there must be a chance to 
the scheduler to change the current process... if this occurs, than the delay 
has to be aborted. 

>
> > About using udelay... this soluction seemed fine to me at first but if I
> > hang the CPU with udelay the scheduler will no be doing it's job (isn't
> > it?). This would give me even more intrusiveness (another requirement:
> > the less intrusiveness as possible).
>
> It would probably work OK on an SMP system, since tasks can still be run
> on the other CPU.
>
> Cheers, Andreas

-- 
Luís Henriques