Re: RT patch acceptance

[Daniel Walker]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> Then I'm afraid preempt-RT infringe on the patent that they take after
> years of doing that in linux. I'm not a lawyer but you may want to
> check before investing too much on this for the next 15 years. The
> nanokernel thing has happened exactly because they couldn't wrap the cli
> calls to do something different than a cli AFIK. Nanokernel was a nice
> workaround to avoid having to us the patented irq disable redefine.
> 
> I assumed you weren't infringing on the patent and in turn disabling irq
> locally would actually do that, sorry.

This is questionable. It doesn't seem reasonable that you could infringe 
on patent by simply not disabling interrupts. There is no interrupt 
disable replacement in the RT patch .

 
Daniel

-
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/