Re: RT patch acceptance

[Andrew Morton]

Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm not going to ignore any of the discussion, but it would be nice to
>  hear Andrew's, or Linus's specific objections..

I have no specific objections - this all started out from my general
observation that things like process-context IRQ handlers and
priority-inheriting mutexes have had a tough reception in the past, and are
likely to do so in the future as well.

This thing will be discussed on a patch-by-patch basis.  Contra this email
thread, we won't consider it from an all-or-nothing perspective.

(That being said, it's already a mighty task to decrypt your way through
the maze-like implementation of spin_lock(), lock_kernel(),
smp_processor_id() etc, etc.  I really do wish there was some way we could
clean up/simplify that stuff before getting in and adding more source-level
complexity).

-
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/