[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RT patch acceptance
    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

    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: 2005-05-24 07:52    [W:0.036 / U:1.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site