lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RT patch acceptance
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> The reason I raise this topic is that the fact spin_lock_irq wasn't
> disabling irqs like it does in the non-RT configuration, sounded like
> the technique described in the patent and it's one technique I always
> considered not-usable. I possibly wrongly remembered that redefining the
> disable-interrupt operation not to disable irqs, was the crucial point
> of the patent. But as I've said I'm not a lawyer and so I may have
> misunderstood completely the technique that the rtlinux patent is
> covering (the way patents are written is not very readable to me).

FWIW the decoupling of interrupt mask levels from
spinlocks is a technique which predates the patent
under discussion by a decade or so. And yes IANAL
as well but it seems the patent would/should not
have been awarded if it conflicted/overlapped with
preexisting usage. I'd hazard this is a non-issue.

-john


--
john.cooper@timesys.com
-
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: 2005-06-01 17:43    [W:0.272 / U:1.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site