Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 May 2005 01:21:24 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: RT patch acceptance |
| |
K.R. Foley wrote:
> > There are definitely those who would prefer to have the functionality, > at least as an option, in the mainline kernel. The group that I contract > for get heartburn about having to patch every kernel running on every > development workstation and every production system. We need hard RT, > but currently when we have to have hard RT we go with a different > product.
Well, yes. There are lots of things Linux isn't suited for. There are likewise a lot of patches that SGI would love to get into the kernel so it runs better on their 500+ CPU systems. My point was just that a new functionality/feature doesn't by itself justify being included in the kernel.org kernel.
> Another thing that some of us want/need is a hard real-time > Linux that doesn't create the segregation that most of these specialized > products create. Currently there are damn few choices for real posix > applications development with hard RT requirements running in a Unix > environment. >
Maybe there are damn few because it is hard to get right within the framework of a general posix environment. Or maybe its because it has a comparatively small userbase (compared to say mid/small servers and desktops). Which are neither completely invalid reasons against its inclusion in Linux.
But I want to be clear that I haven't read or thought about the code in question too much, and I don't have any opinions on it yet. So please nobody involve me in a flamewar about it :)
Nick
- 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/
| |