![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* 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. 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). 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-) Ingo - 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 11:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||