Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread

[Karim Yaghmour]

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> OK.  However, should the discussion get to the point where something
> like RTAI-Fusion has realtime versions of system calls that have
> globally-visible side-effects (such as I/O, networking, IPC, ...),
> then the issue of how to get the non-realtime and the realtime variants
> to play nicely with each other will arise.

Maybe so, but this will be a problem for the RT folks, not the
mainstream folks, and that's why I believe this strategy is
likely to be more feasible.

> I was responding to your list of combinations of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, Adeos,
> and Fusion, assuming (probably incorrectly) that you and Kristian were
> looking to compare all the possible combinations.  If my assumption is
> incorrect, then my question was irrelevant, and I apologize for the noise.

Sorry, there's only so much we can do. Currently, we are redoing
our earlier tests with what Ingo gave us.

Karim
-- 
Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant
Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits
http://www.opersys.com || karim@xxxxxxxxxxx || 1-866-677-4546
-
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/