Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:26:54 -0400 | From | Karim Yaghmour <> | Subject | Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread |
| |
Daniel Walker wrote: > I think this is mistake. Projects that create separation like this are > begging for the community to reject them. I see this as a design for > one, instead of design for many mistake. From what I've seen, a project > would want to do as much clean integration as possible.
I understand what you're saying, but based on the feedback PREEMPT_RT has gotten up until now, and now outright suggestions that the debate is not even relevant to the LKML, I think that some people are trying to give those interested a hint: integration with mainline code is NOT on the agenda.
Some may want to continue trying to force-feed mainstream maintainers. I can't stop anyone from trying, that's for sure. However, I think what I'm suggesting is a reasonable compromise: mainstream maintainers don't need to care about RT on a day-to- day basis and the RT folks get to be part of mainline.
That said, please make sure you've carefully read through what I suggest. I'm not saying that everything inside the kernel needs to be duplicated. I'm saying that what add-ons are should be separate. For example, like I was first saying, headers in include/linux-hrt would point back to include/linux-srt where appropriate.
And like I said earlier, this suggestion would need to be refined.
Karim -- Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits http://www.opersys.com || karim@opersys.com || 1-866-677-4546 - 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/
| |