From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3FC4C1DD.3020209@imc-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:08:13 +0100 From: Steven Scholz MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marius Groeger Cc: Jaap-Jan Boor , "linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org" Subject: Re: Preemptive Kernel and MPC8xx ??? References: <3FC0A1D3.70706@imc-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Marius Groeger wrote: > AFAIK, you can pretty much drop the low-latency patch in favor of > using the lock-breaking patch. It is also available from Robert Love > at the cited home page. Rob Love wrote me: >>Is it correct that your lock-break does basicly the same as Andrew Morton's >>low-latency patches? Where is the big difference? > > Yes, basically the same thing. Lock-break is a version of low-latency > that is "optimized" for use with the preemptive kernel. > > You might as well just use low-latency, as Andrew is keeping that more > up to date. And that's what I noticed when looking and the download pages... That leaves three options: > (a) Use only preempt-kernel > (b) Use only low-latency > (c) Use preempt-kernel + low-latency Right? -- Steven Scholz imc Measurement & Control imc Meßsysteme GmbH Voltastr. 5 Voltastr. 5 13355 Berlin 13355 Berlin Germany Deutschland fon: +49 30 467090-0 Tel: 030 / 467090-0 fax: +49 30 4631576 fax: 030 / 4631576 ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/