From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: Preemptive Kernel and MPC8xx ??? From: Jaap-Jan Boor To: Steven Scholz Cc: Marius Groeger , "linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org" In-Reply-To: <3FC4C1DD.3020209@imc-berlin.de> References: <3FC0A1D3.70706@imc-berlin.de> <3FC4C1DD.3020209@imc-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1069863786.1263.6.camel@linpc003.aimsys.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:23:06 +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 16:08, Steven Scholz wrote: > 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? Yes, I use (c) ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/