Re: 2.2.2: 2 thumbs up from lm
Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:20:53 +1100
Alan Cox writes:
> > I'd say this is a general human problem. I've seen it on linux-kernel
> > before, and I hate it. It makes developers quit. Why bother hacking
> > Linux if you know that your patches will just be shot down?
> >
[signals stuff deleted]
> There are two very real camps about the real time type stuff in Linux
>
> 1 is the "its either real time or its not". Thats things like
> rtlinux. If you say 71uS you get 71uS even if netscape is
> loading. And for the code modules that are critical to latency you
> pay in flexibility and API tools.
>
> 2 is the "most is good enough" argument. Thats not generally coming
> from the 'if we miss the building blows up' department of real time
> computing but from the 'I dont want my MP3 files to jump' school -
> where perfection isnt the aim.
>
> I'm quite interested to see what can be done in #2 without getting
> to the point it complicates the kernel. But if you are controlling
> nuclear power stations stick to rtlinux because its much much safer.
Agreed: for something critical #1 should be considered. #2 is what my
patch does, and it de-complicates the kernel.
Regards,
Richard....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/