Re: RT patch acceptance

Esben Nielsen
2005-06-02T08:58:41Z

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Bill Huey wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:02:44PM -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> > > people will just assume it to be hard-RT and they could build hardware
> > > with random drivers thinking that they will get the gurantee. I
> > > understand it's ok with you since you're able to evaluate the RT-safety
> > > of every driver you use, but I sure prefer "ruby hard" solutions that
> > > don't require looking into drivers to see if they're RT-safe.
> >
> > Again, this has been covered previously by this thread. It's ultimately
> > about writing RT apps that have a more sophisticated use that RTAI or
> > RT Linux.
>
> Also, I'm telling you as a person that works for a well known RTOS company
> that this patch is very very close to achieving the hard determinism goals
> outlined. It has good latency and good overall kernel performancei and it's
> much closer to your notion of "ruby" hard RT that you might realize. What's
> needed to be done is largely driver mop up and nothing more that I can tell.
>
> There hasn't been any major driver changes submitted recently with this
> patch so the code base is pretty stable at the moment.
>
> bill
>
I can add that even with the commercial hard-RT OS we use at work, I
have had to rewrite 2nd source (isn't that the expression?) drivers to
make it fit into the RT world!

Esben