lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RT patch acceptance
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Oh OK, I didn't realise it is aiming for hard RT. Cool! but
>>that wasn't so much the main point I was trying to make...
>>
>>
>>>so it's well worth the effort, but there's no hurry and all the changes
>>>are incremental anyway. I can understand Daniel's desire for more action
>>>(he's got a product to worry about), but upstream isnt ready for this
>>>yet.
>>>
>>
>>Basically the same questions I think will still be up for debate. Not
>>that I want to start now, nor do I really have any feelings on the
>>matter yet (other than I'm glad you're not in a hurry :)).
>
>
> i expect it to be pretty much like voluntary-preempt: there was much
> flaming 9 months ago and by today 99% of the voluntary-preempt patches
> are already in the upstream kernel and the remaining 1% (which just adds
> the config option and touches one include file) i didnt submit yet.
>

Oh? I thought the idea of the voluntary-preempt thing was to stick
cond_rescheds into might_sleep. At least that was the part I think
I objected to... but I don't think I was one of the participants in
that flamewar :)

> so i dont think there's much need to worry or even to decide anything
> upfront: the merge is already happening. The two biggest preconditions
> of PREEMPT_RT, the irq subsystem rewrite, and the spinlock-init API
> cleanups are already upstream. The rest is just details or out-of-line
> code. The discussions need to happen in small isolated steps, as the
> component technologies are merged and discussed. The components are all
> useful even without the final PREEMPT_RT step (which further proves the
> usefulness of PREEMPT_RT - but you dont have to agree with that global
> assertion).
>

No definitely - if things can get merged bit by bit in small, agreeable
chunks then that is the best way of course.

> So i'm afraid nothing radical will happen anywhere. Maybe we can have
> one final flamewar-party in the end when the .config options are about
> to be added, just for nostalgia, ok? =B-)

Well from Daniel's message it seemed like things were not quite so far
along as you say.

Flamewar party? I'm afraid I don't have a thing to bring (... yet!)
I'm sure someone will invite themselves, for old time's sake :)



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-24 13:18    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site