Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]

[Pierre Cloutier <pcloutier@poseidoncontrols.com>]

On Sun, 26 May 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2002, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> > Show me how you will implement a closed loop controller where the
> > application is _not_ implemented as a kernel module. I would really love
> > to do it this way, but unfortunately no one of the realtime programmers
> > has found a way how it can be achieved so far.
>
> The thing is, if your whole app is really RT, then neither RTAI nor
> RTLinux will help you all that much.
>
> The "user space" in RTAI ends up being equally limited as any kernel
> module in RTLinux. No dynamic memory allocation, no deep recursion, no
> regular system calls. That's just fundamental to hard realtime, and has
> nothing to do with any of the environments themselves.
>
> The "advantage" of RTAI is a copyright license issue at that point,
> nothing more (well, you get your own address space, but since you mustn't
> fault anything anyway, the advantage is dubious, _and_ it certainly eats
> into your performance). And as explained elsewhere, I don't find that to
> be an advantage at all (and as pointed out by Larry, there seems to be
> some dubious issues about the RTAI copyright itself).
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'd love to say that it could be easily fixed by
> doing xxxx, but the fact is that since the linux kernel itself isn't hard
> realtime, the lack of kernel services really is unavoidable.
>
> And once you lack kernel services, from a programming standpoint it
> shouldn't really matter whether it's a kernel module or not. You've got
> basically the same amount of (or rather, "lack of") support. A lot of
> things are a lot easier in kernel mode (interrupts, IO etc), while you
> might find loading the app etc easier in the RTAI model, for example. You
> win some, you lose some.
>
> Can we make the whole kernel truly hard-RT? Sure, possible in theory. In
> practice? No way, José. It's just not mainline enough.
>
> So I'm agreeing with you: for true hard RT, you need a kernel module. I
> can't come up with a way to avoid any of the fundamental problems either..
>

Hi:

Linus misses the most important feature of hard real time in user space.

RTAI deals with memory protection traps and terminates buggy code.
Linus must know that a bug in the kernel means trouble - trouble that may be, 
just may be, fsck may not be able to deal with in the aftermath...

So the concept is simple. Develop the real time code in user space under 
memory protection. When done move the stuff in the kernel (it is the same 
API) if performance demands it, otherwise why bother!

As to the patent issues I do not care. The patent will not hold in a court of 
law because there was prior knowledge. There are also filling timing issues...

I regret the FUD as it is advertising for the weak side of the force.

Best Regards,

Pierre Cloutier