Re: RT patch acceptance

Steven Rostedt
2005-05-31T23:42:52Z

On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:47 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:22 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I wouldn't call RTAI, RTLinux or a nano-kernel (embedded with Linux)
> > "Diamond" hard. Maybe "Ruby" hard, but not diamond. Remember, I use to
> > test code that was running airplane engines, and none of those mentioned
> > would qualify to run that.
>
> I think trying to make these types of distinctions is a waste of time.
> What matters is the MTBF of the software relative to the hardware on a
> given system. It would be stupid to use a commercial RTOS for a cell
> phone because they fall apart in a year anyway and users don't seem to
> care. Ditto anything running on PC hardware. For an airplane the MTBF
> obviously must be more in line with that hardware which hopefully is way
> more reliable.

Agreed. I only brought up the stupid names just to show that there's
not a black and white aspect to what RT is. It's mainly a black art
since there's no way to know how many bugs a program has, and how do you
truly calculate the MTBF, other than running it on the hardware itself?

> Only the engineer who designs the system knows for sure, so if the RT
> app people say PREEMPT_RT is good enough for a *very* large set of the
> applications that they currently need a commercial RTOS for, they should
> be given the benefit of the doubt. To say otherwise is to assert that
> you know their hardware (be it desktop PC, digital audio workstation, or
> airplane) better than they do.

True, but do they really know how good PREEMPT_RT is, compared to those
that develop it and the kernel? But I'm fighting to get PREEMPT_RT into
the kernel, since I really think it would be used by quite a lot in the
industry. Just not the normal Desktop user.

-- Steve