Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:57:21 -0500 (CDT) | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: [linux-audio-dev] lowish-latency patch and toolchain |
| |
"Khimenko Victor" <khim@sch57.msk.ru>: > In <20000710092651Z32202-532+21297@nic.funet.fi> Juhana Sadeharju (kouhia@nic.funet.fi) wrote: > > > I think 4 ms could be better. If we don't get any agreement we really > > should go for the old 2 ms lowlatency patch and forget any new compromized > > kludge. > > > It would be nice if Linus would allow keeping this kludge patch as > > compilation option in Linux source tree, so that it comes with every > > Linux distribution. That would be __a real compromize__! > > Huh. You joking, right ? Low-latency patch was not accepted since it'll make > kernel maintainance nightmare (this not the only reason, but main reason). > And this patch as kernel compilation option will affect kernel maintainance > MORE not less then just patch without compilation option. THIS IS "a real > compromise" ??? Gah.
I thought he may mean an option that would apply the patch to a normal kernel. That way the patch would be matched against the distributed kernel, but the kernel would NOT have the patch already applied.
This would have eliminated the "will affect kernel maintainance" reason, and would not be any worse than the user having to download the patch, apply it, and build. It would, at least, promise that the patch would apply correctly (without patch errors), and the resulting kernel should (but not always) run. A most "experimental" option ever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |