[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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.


> 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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-31 13:11    [W:0.239 / U:7.428 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site