Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 May 2005 21:06:38 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: RT patch acceptance |
| |
James Bruce wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >> 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. > > > It is only better in that if you need provable hard-RT *right now*, then > you have to use a nanokernel. The RT patch doesn't provide guaranteed > hard-RT yet[1], but it may in the future. Any RT application programmer
This was my main line of questioning - what future direction will do the RT guys want from the PREEMPT_RT work. I was concerned that hard-realtime does not sound feasable for Linux.
[snip]
> > I think where we violently disagree is that in your earlier posts you > seemed to imply that a nanokernel hard-RT solution obviates the need for > something like preempt-RT. That is not the case at all, and at the
Actually I think that is also where we violently agree ;) If you look at some of my earlier posts, you'll see I had to add 'disclaimers' until I was blue in the face. But I don't blame you for not wanting to crawl through all that / or not seeing it.
Basically: I know they are orthogonal, and I don't disagree that generally better scheduling and interrupt latency would be nice for Linux to have.
Now I'll really stop posting. Sorry everyone.
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/
| |