Re: RT patch acceptance

["K.R. Foley" <kr@cybsft.com>]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> K.R. Foley wrote:
> 
>>
>> There are definitely those who would prefer to have the functionality,
>> at least as an option, in the mainline kernel. The group that I contract
>> for get heartburn about having to patch every kernel running on every
>> development workstation and every production system. We need hard RT,
>> but currently when we have to have hard RT we go with a different
>> product.
> 
> 
> Well, yes. There are lots of things Linux isn't suited for.
> There are likewise a lot of patches that SGI would love to
> get into the kernel so it runs better on their 500+ CPU
> systems. My point was just that a new functionality/feature
> doesn't by itself justify being included in the kernel.org
> kernel.

Agreed. Maybe the Linux kernel can't be all things to all of us, even as 
configuration options. I am certainly not the one who is going to make 
that decision either. I just wanted voice my opinion from a 
user/developer perspective.

> 
>> Another thing that some of us want/need is a hard real-time
>> Linux that doesn't create the segregation that most of these specialized
>> products create. Currently there are damn few choices for real posix
>> applications development with hard RT requirements running in a Unix
>> environment.
>>
> 
> Maybe there are damn few because it is hard to get right within
> the framework of a general posix environment. Or maybe its
> because it has a comparatively small userbase (compared to say
> mid/small servers and desktops). Which are neither completely
> invalid reasons against its inclusion in Linux.
> 
> But I want to be clear that I haven't read or thought about the
> code in question too much, and I don't have any opinions on it
> yet. So please nobody involve me in a flamewar about it :)
> 
> Nick
> 
> 

And please don't misunderstand my statements as trying start a flamewar 
either. :-)

-- 
    kr