From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43E68D74.4000903@domain.hid> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:42:44 +0100 From: Hannes Mayer MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] ... the rt-preempt patch once been in fusion References: <43E668EF.4090306@domain.hid> <43E6861E.3000400@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <43E6861E.3000400@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Philippe Gerum Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Ciao Philippe! Philippe Gerum wrote: [...] > Clearly not, it is still on the project's agenda, but PREEMPT_RT has > been too much of a moving target recently, not to speak of the vanilla > 2.6 kernel itself. Recently ? As for Kernel 2.6 there has always been too much development for a stable release IMO, so I still prefer 2.4, but that's a solely personal opinion. On the other hand, 2.6 has been quite stable for me (desktop and devel-stress-testing). > This combo cannot be done > overnight, I was not complaining - just curious :-) > This work is likely going to start by a test campaign evaluating > PREEMPT_RT's and Xeno's nucleus performances in a series of simple and > relevant test cases over different ranges of platforms, so that we could Testing ? FWIW, I've just completed another page about the vanilla vs. preempt_rt thing: http://www.captain.at/howto-linux-real-time-patch.php If you have the one or another additional stress test, I'd be more than happy to add it to the page. Thanks and best regards, Hannes.