[no subject]

[root]

	by smtp.nexlab.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF37FB79

	for <chiakotay@xxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 24 May 2005 10:01:48 +0200 (CEST)

Received: (majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand

	id S261271AbVEXFr3 (ORCPT <rfc822;chiakotay@xxxxxxxxx>);

	Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:29 -0400

Received: (majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) by vger.kernel.org id S261302AbVEXFr3

	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);

	Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:29 -0400

Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:53900 "EHLO

	pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP

	id S261271AbVEXFrX (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>);

	Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:23 -0400

Received: from hch by pentafluge.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux))

	id 1DaSGA-0001eE-LR; Tue, 24 May 2005 06:47:22 +0100

Date:	Tue, 24 May 2005 06:47:22 +0100

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx,
	sdietrich@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance

Message-ID: <20050524054722.GA6160@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
	mingo@xxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, sdietrich@xxxxxxxxxx
References: <1116890066.13086.61.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Disposition: inline

In-Reply-To: <1116890066.13086.61.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> by pentafluge.infradead.org

	See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html

Sender: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk

X-Mailing-List:	linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Hello World!
> 
> I went to see Andrew Morton speak at Xerox PARC and he indicated that
> some of the RT patch was a little crazy . Specifically interrupts in
> threads (Correct me if I'm wrong Andrew). It seems a lot of the
> maintainers haven't really warmed up to it. 
> 
> I don't know to what extent Ingo has lobbied to try to get acceptance
> into an unstable or stable kernel. However, since I know Andrew is cold
> to accepting it , I thought I would ask what would need to be done to
> the RT patch so that it could be accepted?
> 
> I think the fact that some distributions are including RT patched
> kernels is a sign that this technology is getting mature. Not to mention
> the fact that it's a 600k+ patch and getting bigger everyday. 
> 
> I'm sure there are some people fiercely opposed to it, some of whom I've
> already run into. What is it about RT that gets people's skin crawling?
> It is a configure option after all.

Personally I think interrupt threads, spinlocks as sleeping mutexes and PI
is something we should keep out of the kernel tree.  If you want such
advanced RT features use a special microkernel and run Linux as user
process, using RTAI or maybe soon some of the more sofisticated virtualization
technologies.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/