From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: karim@opersys.com
Cc: Scott Wood <scott@timesys.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"La Monte H.P. Yarroll" <piggy@timesys.com>,
Manas Saksena <manas.saksena@timesys.com>,
Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] IRQ threads
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:43:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1091051005.791.45.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41081771.1010307@opersys.com>
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 17:15, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> My real argument was best summarized in the second paragraph, and what
> I'm saying is that these approaches make the kernel's dynamic behavior
> extremely complicated. And while they do contribute to making the
> kernel's response time faster, they do not provided hard-rt, which is
> what everyone is trying to get in the end anyway (either intentionally
> or unintentionally.)
>
> With that, let me respond to Bill's discussion on signle vs. N kernels
> as that thread is the most likely to be fruitfull. I hope you'll agree.
>
Yes, agreed. I am glad this did not escalate, and I hope you can
understand how I would have overlooked your actual argument due to my
perceiving the first paragraph as vaguely ad hominem.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-28 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-27 22:50 [patch] IRQ threads Scott Wood
2004-07-28 6:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-07-28 15:38 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 16:01 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 21:23 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-28 21:35 ` Scott Wood
2004-07-29 21:08 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-29 22:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-07-28 23:24 ` Scott Wood
2004-07-28 8:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-07-28 23:12 ` Scott Wood
2004-07-29 19:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-07-29 20:21 ` Scott Wood
2004-07-29 21:12 ` Alan Cox
2004-07-28 15:45 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 18:28 ` Lee Revell
2004-07-28 19:12 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 19:33 ` Lee Revell
2004-07-28 19:57 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 20:35 ` Lee Revell
2004-07-28 21:15 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 21:43 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2004-07-28 21:38 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 20:21 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-28 20:42 ` Lee Revell
2004-07-28 20:46 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-28 21:48 ` Karim Yaghmour
2004-07-28 22:30 ` Bill Huey
2004-07-28 22:03 ` Philippe Gerum
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-29 20:33 Albert Cahalan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1091051005.791.45.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=karim@opersys.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manas.saksena@timesys.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=piggy@timesys.com \
--cc=rpm@xenomai.org \
--cc=scott@timesys.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox