From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261495AbVFASA0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:00:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261487AbVFAR5J (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13:57:09 -0400 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.195]:17828 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261495AbVFAR40 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13:56:26 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UdfM3mr038F/JpfPb8Bv/kh7i/GcRb4igaWWhkz7zmvu9bWKur4dgs+9LCLRp/MnnL8lLMPKzoDBel9NRvlFu3oc2WehKaJR0tHjYYGlI9y95w+h+3cIXE4kclbYaQE9l9OqKzBveF57nxlWm3hWd8JUZZwlhuiUpV2WbCGyKrs= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:56:22 -0700 From: "Paul G. Allen" Reply-To: "Paul G. Allen" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/25/05, kus Kusche Klaus wrote: > > I would like to throw in my (and my employer's) point of view, > which is the point of view of a potential user of RT linux, > not the view of a kernel developer. > > We are currently evaluating the suitability of Linux for > industrial control systems. As we are, but for a different embedded application (see below) > > We strongly opt for having RT in the standard kernel, > not as a separate patch. > It will surely make a big difference for our final decision. 100% agreed. > > From the engineer's point of view: > I would have to agree with all your points here. > > From the management's point of view: > I would have to second all your points here as well. As for our company, and the reason I'm now following RT Linux related threads closely now (though I have missed a LOT over past months), we currently have about 50K units fielded and that number is going to grow significantly. We use VxWorks, which costs money. We don't need all the features of VxWorks. We need a basic RTOS with no VM, a FFS (currently the DOS FFS can lock the CPU for up to 2 sec. and we'd like to significantly reduce this), will run on an embedded ARM7TDMI, and will be supported in some manner (e.g. - a standard part of the kernel). Something that is a "patch" will look bad to management and make future updates, as was stated, a PITA. To save on the licensing and development fees, I think we would have no trouble developing the features we need (and turning around and submitting them back to the community) IF RT Linux is at least close to being ready for Prime Time with the features I mention above. So, how stable is RT Linux (or any of the several flavors of real-time Linux versions) and would it be suitable for an embedded system used for communications? How long before it's part of the standard kernel (even if it's just a compile-time option)? PGA