On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Not if you read it this way: "we want feature XYZ, but we won't call
> it RT, because then people will tell us to use RTLinux, and we don't
> want to do that.".
They have given some good justification as to why RTLinux is not an
ideal solution for them.
> I think people advocating the scheduling/preemption hacks should go
> and run some exhaustive tests to find out how bad the latency can be
> with said patch, and then identify where the remaining latencies are
> coming from. Then fix the worst offender and run the tests again.
Which is actually what they are suggesting.
-d
-- | "Bombay is 250ms from New York in the new world order" - Alan Cox | Damien Miller - http://www.mindrot.org/ | Email: djm@mindrot.org (home) -or- djm@ibs.com.au (work)- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST