[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:0.270 / U:0.844 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site