Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.10-rc3-mm1-V0.7.33-0

From: Lee Revell
Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 - 17:54:22 EST

On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 23:31 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 22:18 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > the two projects are obviously complementary and i have no intention to
> > > reinvent the wheel in any way. Best would be to bring hires timers up to
> > > upstream-mergable state (independently of the -RT patch) and ask Andrew
> > > to include it in -mm, then i'd port -RT to it automatically.
> >
> > Among other things I think Paul Davis mentioned that George's high res
> > timer patch would make it possible for JACK to send MIDI clock. This
> > would be a huge improvement.
> <clueless question> roughly what latency/accuracy requirements does the
> MIDI clock have, and why is it an advantage if Linux generates it? What
> generates it otherwise - external MIDI hardware? Or was the problem
> mainly not latency/accuracy but that Linux couldnt generate a
> finegrained enough clock?

Being able to send or receive MIDI clock is a common feature for
hardware and software samplers, sequencers, etc. It just allows more
flexibility in your setup. I think currently Linux can receive MIDI
clock better than it can send.

To answer the last question I think the clock was not fine grained
enough. But as far as timing requirements I don't actually know the
details. Paul?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at