![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-05-24 07:52 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||