PREEMPT_RT: 2.6.20-rt8 patch tweaked for 2.6.20.7

PREEMPT_RT: 2.6.20-rt8 patch tweaked for 2.6.20.7

[John Sigler]

Hello,

I've tweaked patch-2.6.20-rt8(*) so that it applies to 2.6.20.7
(*) http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page

The original patch can be found here:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/realtime-preempt/older/patch-2.6.20-rt8
http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20-rt8

diff to the original patch to show what was tweaked:
http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20-rt8.diff

New patch that applies cleanly to 2.6.20.7:
http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20.7-rt8

As always, if someone spots something I've done wrong,
I'd be happy to fix it in a hurry :-)

Ingo, Thomas, are there any fixes that were included in the 2.6.21-rt 
branch only that need to be back-ported to the 2.6.20-rt branch?

Regards.

Re: PREEMPT_RT: 2.6.20-rt8 patch tweaked for 2.6.20.7

[Thomas Gleixner]

John,

On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 15:15 +0200, John Sigler wrote:
> I've tweaked patch-2.6.20-rt8(*) so that it applies to 2.6.20.7
> (*) http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
> 
> The original patch can be found here:
> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/realtime-preempt/older/patch-2.6.20-rt8
> http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20-rt8
> 
> diff to the original patch to show what was tweaked:
> http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20-rt8.diff
> 
> New patch that applies cleanly to 2.6.20.7:
> http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20.7-rt8
> 
> As always, if someone spots something I've done wrong,
> I'd be happy to fix it in a hurry :-)
> 
> Ingo, Thomas, are there any fixes that were included in the 2.6.21-rt 
> branch only that need to be back-ported to the 2.6.20-rt branch?

I've been busy with mainline merge of highres timers lately, so I have
no good overview of the -rt state at the moment, but I will check on
this later that week.

Can you create an entry in the rt-wiki, so people can find your
patches ?

	tglx

Re: PREEMPT_RT: 2.6.20-rt8 patch tweaked for 2.6.20.7

[John Sigler]

Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 15:15 +0200, John Sigler wrote:
>
>> I've tweaked patch-2.6.20-rt8(*) so that it applies to 2.6.20.7
>> (*) http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
>>
>> The original patch can be found here:
>> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/realtime-preempt/older/patch-2.6.20-rt8
>> http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20-rt8
>>
>> diff to the original patch to show what was tweaked:
>> http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20-rt8.diff
>>
>> New patch that applies cleanly to 2.6.20.7:
>> http://linux.kernel.free.fr/patch-2.6.20.7-rt8
>>
>> As always, if someone spots something I've done wrong,
>> I'd be happy to fix it in a hurry :-)
>>
>> Ingo, Thomas, are there any fixes that were included in the 2.6.21-rt
>> branch only that need to be back-ported to the 2.6.20-rt branch?
> 
> I've been busy with mainline merge of highres timers lately, so I have
> no good overview of the -rt state at the moment, but I will check on
> this later that week.
> 
> Can you create an entry in the rt-wiki, so people can find your
> patches ?

Sure.

Should I add a link to my patch on the "CONFIG PREEMPT RT Patch" page?
http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_Patch#Download

e.g. in the "Download" section, something along the lines of:

"An updated version of the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT patch (cleanly applies to
kernel 2.6.20.7) is also available."

I should probably mention that is not an officially sanctioned version,
and that it has not received the same scrutiny as other patches?

Regards.

Re: PREEMPT_RT: 2.6.20-rt8 patch tweaked for 2.6.20.7

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 10:03 +0200, John Sigler wrote:
> > Can you create an entry in the rt-wiki, so people can find your
> > patches ?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Should I add a link to my patch on the "CONFIG PREEMPT RT Patch" page?
> http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_Patch#Download
> 
> e.g. in the "Download" section, something along the lines of:
> 
> "An updated version of the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT patch (cleanly applies to
> kernel 2.6.20.7) is also available."

Yep, that's fine.

> I should probably mention that is not an officially sanctioned version,
> and that it has not received the same scrutiny as other patches?

:)

	tglx