Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2005 19:14:28 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |