Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261271AbVEXFr3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261302AbVEXFr3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:29 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:53900 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261271AbVEXFrX (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 01:47:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:47:22 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Daniel Walker Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org, sdietrich@mvista.com Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance Message-ID: <20050524054722.GA6160@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Daniel Walker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org, sdietrich@mvista.com References: <1116890066.13086.61.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1116890066.13086.61.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1557 Lines: 32 On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > Hello World! > > I went to see Andrew Morton speak at Xerox PARC and he indicated that > some of the RT patch was a little crazy . Specifically interrupts in > threads (Correct me if I'm wrong Andrew). It seems a lot of the > maintainers haven't really warmed up to it. > > I don't know to what extent Ingo has lobbied to try to get acceptance > into an unstable or stable kernel. However, since I know Andrew is cold > to accepting it , I thought I would ask what would need to be done to > the RT patch so that it could be accepted? > > I think the fact that some distributions are including RT patched > kernels is a sign that this technology is getting mature. Not to mention > the fact that it's a 600k+ patch and getting bigger everyday. > > I'm sure there are some people fiercely opposed to it, some of whom I've > already run into. What is it about RT that gets people's skin crawling? > It is a configure option after all. Personally I think interrupt threads, spinlocks as sleeping mutexes and PI is something we should keep out of the kernel tree. If you want such advanced RT features use a special microkernel and run Linux as user process, using RTAI or maybe soon some of the more sofisticated virtualization technologies. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/