From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261255AbVFMUaQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:30:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261279AbVFMU15 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:27:57 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:7437 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261303AbVFMUXt (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:23:49 -0400 Message-ID: <42ADEDC7.9030904@opersys.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:34:15 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040805 Netscape/7.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paulmck@us.ibm.com CC: Andrea Arcangeli , Bill Huey , Lee Revell , Tim Bird , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, pmarques@grupopie.com, bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ak@muc.de, sdietrich@mvista.com, dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread References: <20050610230836.GD21618@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050610232955.GH6564@g5.random> <20050611014133.GO1300@us.ibm.com> <20050611155459.GB5796@g5.random> <20050611210417.GC1299@us.ibm.com> <42AB7857.1090907@opersys.com> <20050612214519.GB1340@us.ibm.com> <42ACE2D3.9080106@opersys.com> <20050613144022.GA1305@us.ibm.com> <42ADE334.4030002@opersys.com> <20050613201046.GE1305@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20050613201046.GE1305@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > 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. Karim -- Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits http://www.opersys.com || karim@opersys.com || 1-866-677-4546