Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 May 2005 19:55:46 -0600 (MDT) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | Re: RT patch acceptance |
| |
On Fri, 27 May 2005, Bill Huey wrote:
> > It isn't clear to me yet. I'm sure you can make your interrupt > > latencies look good, as with your scheduling latencies. But when > > My project was getting a solid spike at 4 usec for irq-thread > startups and Ingo's stuff is better. It's already there.
Is that worst case?
> > I wouldn't consider a non response (or a late response) to mean that > > a point has been conceeded, or that I've won any kind of argument :-) > > Well, you're wrong. :) > > Well, uh, ummm, start writing RT media apps and you will know what > I'm talking about. Dual kernel stuff isn't going to fly with those > folks especially with an RT patch as good as this already in the > general kernel. More experience with this kind of programming makes > it clear where the failures are with a dual kernel approach.
Media apps are actually not that commonplace as far as hard realtime applications are concerned.
Zwane
- 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/
| |