Re: RT patch acceptance

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 21:14 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:

> Please have a look at RTAI-fusion. It provides deterministic
> replacements for rt-able syscalls _transparently_ to STANDARD
> Linux applications. For example, an unmodified Linux application
> can get a deterministic nanosleep() via RTAI-fusion. The way
> this works, is that rtai-fusion catches the syscalls prior to
> them reaching Linux. So even the syscall thing isn't really a
> limitation for RTAI anymore.

This looks very interesting.  I need to read more into RTAI and friends
when I get a chance.  I just received the latest Linux Journal that has
the article about the use of RTLinux with the control of magnetic
bearings.  I've just started reading it so I don't know all the details
yet but it still looks very promising. 

I don't think the adding of preempt-RT patch to the kernel will hurt
anything. In fact I think it may even help out the RTAI and friends.
Anyway, as it has been stated, this discussion has started too early.
(Thanks Daniel ;-)

-- Steve

This is the 279th message on this thread (not counting Lee's recent
"human timing" offshoot)

-
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/