![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Bill Huey wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:02:44PM -0700, Bill Huey wrote: > > > people will just assume it to be hard-RT and they could build hardware > > > with random drivers thinking that they will get the gurantee. I > > > understand it's ok with you since you're able to evaluate the RT-safety > > > of every driver you use, but I sure prefer "ruby hard" solutions that > > > don't require looking into drivers to see if they're RT-safe. > > > > Again, this has been covered previously by this thread. It's ultimately > > about writing RT apps that have a more sophisticated use that RTAI or > > RT Linux. > > Also, I'm telling you as a person that works for a well known RTOS company > that this patch is very very close to achieving the hard determinism goals > outlined. It has good latency and good overall kernel performancei and it's > much closer to your notion of "ruby" hard RT that you might realize. What's > needed to be done is largely driver mop up and nothing more that I can tell. > > There hasn't been any major driver changes submitted recently with this > patch so the code base is pretty stable at the moment. > > bill > I can add that even with the commercial hard-RT OS we use at work, I have had to rewrite 2nd source (isn't that the expression?) drivers to make it fit into the RT world! Esben - 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: 2005-06-02 09:05 [W:1.721 / U:0.100 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||