Re: RT patch acceptance
From: Nick Piggin
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 06:09:35 EST
James Bruce wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
I have never been in any doubt as to the specific claims I have
made. I continually have been talking about hard realtime from
start to finish, and it appears that everyone now agrees with me
that for hard-RT, a nanokernel solution is better or at least
not obviously worse at this stage.
It is only better in that if you need provable hard-RT *right now*, then
you have to use a nanokernel. The RT patch doesn't provide guaranteed
hard-RT yet, but it may in the future. Any RT application programmer
This was my main line of questioning - what future direction will
do the RT guys want from the PREEMPT_RT work. I was concerned that
hard-realtime does not sound feasable for Linux.
I think where we violently disagree is that in your earlier posts you
seemed to imply that a nanokernel hard-RT solution obviates the need for
something like preempt-RT. That is not the case at all, and at the
Actually I think that is also where we violently agree ;)
If you look at some of my earlier posts, you'll see I had to
add 'disclaimers' until I was blue in the face. But I don't
blame you for not wanting to crawl through all that / or not
Basically: I know they are orthogonal, and I don't disagree
that generally better scheduling and interrupt latency would be
nice for Linux to have.
Now I'll really stop posting. Sorry everyone.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
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/