Re: RT patch acceptance

Daniel Walker
2005-06-01T14:41:33Z

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> Then I'm afraid preempt-RT infringe on the patent that they take after
> years of doing that in linux. I'm not a lawyer but you may want to
> check before investing too much on this for the next 15 years. The
> nanokernel thing has happened exactly because they couldn't wrap the cli
> calls to do something different than a cli AFIK. Nanokernel was a nice
> workaround to avoid having to us the patented irq disable redefine.
>
> I assumed you weren't infringing on the patent and in turn disabling irq
> locally would actually do that, sorry.

This is questionable. It doesn't seem reasonable that you could infringe
on patent by simply not disabling interrupts. There is no interrupt
disable replacement in the RT patch .

Daniel