Re: RT patch acceptance

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

James Bruce wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>> I have never been in any doubt as to the specific claims I have
>> made. I continually have been talking about hard realtime from
>> start to finish, and it appears that everyone now agrees with me
>> that for hard-RT, a nanokernel solution is better or at least
>> not obviously worse at this stage.
> 
> 
> It is only better in that if you need provable hard-RT *right now*, then 
> you have to use a nanokernel.  The RT patch doesn't provide guaranteed 
> hard-RT yet[1], but it may in the future.  Any RT application programmer 

This was my main line of questioning - what future direction will
do the RT guys want from the PREEMPT_RT work. I was concerned that
hard-realtime does not sound feasable for Linux.

[snip]

> 
> I think where we violently disagree is that in your earlier posts you 
> seemed to imply that a nanokernel hard-RT solution obviates the need for 
> something like preempt-RT.  That is not the case at all, and at the 

Actually I think that is also where we violently agree ;)
If you look at some of my earlier posts, you'll see I had to
add 'disclaimers' until I was blue in the face. But I don't
blame you for not wanting to crawl through all that / or not
seeing it.

Basically: I know they are orthogonal, and I don't disagree
that generally better scheduling and interrupt latency would be
nice for Linux to have.

Now I'll really stop posting. Sorry everyone.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com