Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread

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

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 04:34:15PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> 
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK.  However, should the discussion get to the point where something
> > like RTAI-Fusion has realtime versions of system calls that have
> > globally-visible side-effects (such as I/O, networking, IPC, ...),
> > then the issue of how to get the non-realtime and the realtime variants
> > to play nicely with each other will arise.
> 
> Maybe so, but this will be a problem for the RT folks, not the
> mainstream folks, and that's why I believe this strategy is
> likely to be more feasible.

Unless correctly handling the side effects requires changes to the
mainstream as well as to the RT implementations, as it might well for
I/O, networking, and IPC.  Again, I believe that it might be some time
before we get to this point, so am not all that worried about it.

> > I was responding to your list of combinations of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, Adeos,
> > and Fusion, assuming (probably incorrectly) that you and Kristian were
> > looking to compare all the possible combinations.  If my assumption is
> > incorrect, then my question was irrelevant, and I apologize for the noise.
> 
> Sorry, there's only so much we can do. Currently, we are redoing
> our earlier tests with what Ingo gave us.

Yours and Kristian's benchmarking contribution is quite timely and
substantial, and I know that I am not the only one who very much
appreciates it!

							Thanx, Paul