From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: karim@opersys.com
Cc: Scott Wood <scott@timesys.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"La Monte H.P. Yarroll" <piggy@timesys.com>,
Manas Saksena <manas.saksena@timesys.com>,
Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] IRQ threads
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:43:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1091051005.791.45.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41081771.1010307@opersys.com>
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 17:15, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> My real argument was best summarized in the second paragraph, and what
> I'm saying is that these approaches make the kernel's dynamic behavior
> extremely complicated. And while they do contribute to making the
> kernel's response time faster, they do not provided hard-rt, which is
> what everyone is trying to get in the end anyway (either intentionally
> or unintentionally.)
>
> With that, let me respond to Bill's discussion on signle vs. N kernels
> as that thread is the most likely to be fruitfull. I hope you'll agree.
>
Yes, agreed. I am glad this did not escalate, and I hope you can
understand how I would have overlooked your actual argument due to my
perceiving the first paragraph as vaguely ad hominem.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-28 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-27 22:50 [patch] IRQ threads Scott Wood
2004-07-28 6:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-07-28 15:38 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 16:01 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 21:23 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-28 21:35 ` Scott Wood
2004-07-29 21:08 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-29 22:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-07-28 23:24 ` Scott Wood
2004-07-28 8:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-07-28 23:12 ` Scott Wood
2004-07-29 19:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-07-29 20:21 ` Scott Wood
2004-07-29 21:12 ` Alan Cox
2004-07-28 15:45 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 18:28 ` Lee Revell
2004-07-28 19:12 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 19:33 ` Lee Revell
2004-07-28 19:57 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 20:35 ` Lee Revell
2004-07-28 21:15 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 21:43 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2004-07-28 21:38 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 20:21 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-28 20:42 ` Lee Revell
2004-07-28 20:46 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-28 21:48 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 22:30 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-28 22:03 ` Philippe Gerum
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-29 20:33 Albert Cahalan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1091051005.791.45.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=karim@opersys.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manas.saksena@timesys.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=piggy@timesys.com \
--cc=rpm@xenomai.org \
--cc=scott@timesys.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.