Re: RT patch acceptance

Andrea Arcangeli
2005-05-31T17:23:14Z

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 12:18:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Later, while working at Lockheed, we had WindRiver over and they would
> only give a small broken down (basically all features removed) OS that
> Lockheed would be responsible for testing.
>
> When someone mentions Hard-RT, this is what I think about. These are

I think testing is the wrong word. The code should be demonstrated to be
correct, and to do so it must be stripped down and as simple as
possible. Then the more testing the better to verify it's all right, but
people shouldn't depend _only_ on huge testing. Probably linux is too
big anyway for those usages, but certainly one needs a guarantee of
hard-RT for those usages that preempt-RT sure can't provide (while
nanokernel/RTAI could at least in theory provide it, assuming rest of
linux itself has no bugs and no memory corruption/deadlocks leading to a
full system crash).