[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RT patch acceptance
    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Nick Piggin <> 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
    >>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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-05-24 13:18    [W:0.025 / U:16.192 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site