Re: RT patch acceptance

[Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>]

On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 18:31 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> I've taken enough bandwidth as it is
> on this thread, and I frankly don't think that any of what I
> said above has added any more information for those who've
> read my previous postings. I only got into this thread to point
> out that some info about RTAI was wrong. So like I told Ingo,
> if rt-preempt gets in, then so be it.

Here's my favorite excerpt: 

On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 16:11, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> And this has been demonstrated mathematically/algorithmically to be
> true 100% of the time, regardless of the load and the driver set? IOW,
> if I was building an automated industrial saw (based on a VP+IRQ-thread
> kernel or a combination of the above-mentioned agregate) with a
> safety mechanism that depended on the kernel's responsivness to
> outside events to avoid bodily harm, would you be willing to put your
> hand beneath it?

Maybe -RT should be merged when Ingo puts his hand under the saw.

Lee