Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2005 11:20:49 +0200 (CEST) | From | root@smtp ... |
| |
by smtp.nexlab.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF37FB79
for <chiakotay@nexlab.it>; Tue, 24 May 2005 10:01:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
id S261271AbVEXFr3 (ORCPT <rfc822;chiakotay@nexlab.it>);
Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:29 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261302AbVEXFr3
(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:29 -0400
Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:53900 "EHLO
pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
id S261271AbVEXFrX (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:23 -0400
Received: from hch by pentafluge.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
id 1DaSGA-0001eE-LR; Tue, 24 May 2005 06:47:22 +0100
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:47:22 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org, sdietrich@mvista.com Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance
Message-ID: <20050524054722.GA6160@infradead.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org, sdietrich@mvista.com References: <1116890066.13086.61.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1116890066.13086.61.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from <hch@infradead.org> by pentafluge.infradead.org
See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > Hello World! > > I went to see Andrew Morton speak at Xerox PARC and he indicated that > some of the RT patch was a little crazy . Specifically interrupts in > threads (Correct me if I'm wrong Andrew). It seems a lot of the > maintainers haven't really warmed up to it. > > I don't know to what extent Ingo has lobbied to try to get acceptance > into an unstable or stable kernel. However, since I know Andrew is cold > to accepting it , I thought I would ask what would need to be done to > the RT patch so that it could be accepted? > > I think the fact that some distributions are including RT patched > kernels is a sign that this technology is getting mature. Not to mention > the fact that it's a 600k+ patch and getting bigger everyday. > > I'm sure there are some people fiercely opposed to it, some of whom I've > already run into. What is it about RT that gets people's skin crawling? > It is a configure option after all.
Personally I think interrupt threads, spinlocks as sleeping mutexes and PI is something we should keep out of the kernel tree. If you want such advanced RT features use a special microkernel and run Linux as user process, using RTAI or maybe soon some of the more sofisticated virtualization technologies.
- 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/
- 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/
| |