Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance
From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: karim@opersys.com
Cc: Sven Dietrich <sdietrich@mvista.com>, "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@elte.hu>,
       "'Esben Nielsen'" <simlo@phys.au.dk>,
       "'Christoph Hellwig'" <hch@infradead.org>,
       "'Daniel Walker'" <dwalker@mvista.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       akpm@osdl.org, "'Philippe Gerum'" <rpm@xenomai.org>
In-Reply-To: <4293AB4D.4030506@opersys.com>
References: <001701c560a6$cafbe2b0$c800a8c0@mvista.com>
	 <4293AB4D.4030506@opersys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 19:46:24 -0400
Message-Id: <1116978384.2912.53.camel@mindpipe>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1232
Lines: 30

On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 18:31 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> I've taken enough bandwidth as it is
> on this thread, and I frankly don't think that any of what I
> said above has added any more information for those who've
> read my previous postings. I only got into this thread to point
> out that some info about RTAI was wrong. So like I told Ingo,
> if rt-preempt gets in, then so be it.

Here's my favorite excerpt: 

On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 16:11, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> And this has been demonstrated mathematically/algorithmically to be
> true 100% of the time, regardless of the load and the driver set? IOW,
> if I was building an automated industrial saw (based on a VP+IRQ-thread
> kernel or a combination of the above-mentioned agregate) with a
> safety mechanism that depended on the kernel's responsivness to
> outside events to avoid bodily harm, would you be willing to put your
> hand beneath it?

Maybe -RT should be merged when Ingo puts his hand under the saw.

Lee

 

-
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/