Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 May 2005 19:33:38 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: RT patch acceptance |
| |
James Bruce wrote:
> That said, its important not to claim something about a patch which > doesn't match the common definitions. Ingo has been very careful in the > claims he's made, but I think a lot of people have read his posts too > quickly and misinterpreted what he's claiming for the current patch. > This includes people on both sides of the fence. He's also been silent > for much of this discussion as its gotten out of hand, showing he's > clearly wiser than all of us. >
I have never been in any doubt as to the specific claims I have made. I continually have been talking about hard realtime from start to finish, and it appears that everyone now agrees with me that for hard-RT, a nanokernel solution is better or at least not obviously worse at this stage.
Ingo actually of course has been completely rational and honest the whole time - he actually emailed me to basically say "there will be pros and cons of both, and until things develop further I'm not completely sure".
Which I was pretty satisfied with. Then along came the lynch mob.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |