Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 01:23:34AM +0200, Eric Piel wrote:
> 06/11/2005 01:04 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote/a écrit:
> >>Just a small change to "1 - QoS":
> >>
> >>
> >>>b.	For each service:
> >>>
> >>>	i.	Probability of missing a deadline due to software,
> >>>		ranging from 0 to 1, with the value of 1 corresponding
> >>>		to the hardest possible hard realtime.
> >>
> >>I think it should be (by reference to how you define probability at the 
> >>beginning of the section):
> >>Probability of not missing any deadline due to software
> >
> >
> >Good catch!  How about the following?
> >
> >	i.      Probability of meeting a deadline due to software,
> >		ranging from 0 to 1, with the value of 1 corresponding
> >		to the hardest possible hard realtime.
> >
> >Changing "missing" in the original to "meeting".
> 
> It sounds strange to me (but english is not my mother tongue), it's like 
> hardware was not so good but software helped to recover the situation 
> and, eventually, the deadline was met ;-)

Hmmm...  It would appear that English's being my mother tongue is not
helping me as much as one might hope.  ;-)

> What about using the way you wrote it at the beginning of the section:
> "Probability of missing a deadline only because of a hardware failure"

Good point, I may just need to invert the whole thing, so that it
becomes something like:

	i.	Probability of missing a deadline due to software,
		ranging from 0 to 1, with the value of 0 corresponding
		to the hardest possible hard realtime.

But then the "p^n" becomes "1-(1-p)^n".  Bleah.

OK, how about the following?

	i.	Probability of meeting a deadline in absence of hardware
		failure, ranging from 0 to 1, with the value of 1
		corresponding to the hardest possible hard realtime.

							Thanx, Paul