Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261923AbVE0Rr6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 13:47:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261952AbVE0Rr6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 13:47:58 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:42767 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261923AbVE0Rr3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 13:47:29 -0400 Message-ID: <42975D0A.7070608@opersys.com> Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:46:50 -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: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich CC: Nick Piggin , Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , dwalker@mvista.com, bhuey@lnxw.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance References: <20050525005942.GA24893@nietzsche.lynx.com> <1116982977.19926.63.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <20050524184351.47d1a147.akpm@osdl.org> <4293DCB1.8030904@mvista.com> <20050524192029.2ef75b89.akpm@osdl.org> <20050525063306.GC5164@elte.hu> <1117044019.5840.32.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net> <20050526193230.GY86087@muc.de> <1117138270.1583.44.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net> <20050526202747.GB86087@muc.de> <4296ADE9.50805@yahoo.com.au> <1117178430.6138.16.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net> In-Reply-To: <1117178430.6138.16.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net> 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 Content-Length: 1551 Lines: 37 [side-note] Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote: > If you are truly interested, there are a lot of papers about RT. There > are nanokernel implementations and patents you can review, and there is > a lot of controversy. Please drop the patent topic, it hasn't been relevant for years. If you search the LKML archives for the initial release of Adeos, you will see a thread where that specific topic is cleared up. If still in doubt, do read the actual relevant patent application(s?), you will see that no nanokernel/hyervisor out there fits the described method. Not to mention that hypervisors/nanokernels have been there for decades ... The specific patent that covers dual-kernels does not even attempt to claim it covers the broad world of nanokernels/ hypervisors. Hope this clears this bit, and please don't drag this further. That particular topic has been debated more than enough, and I've said what I had to say about it many times already. From that point of view, I fully agree with you that there's no need to waste people's time further. With that said, let's go back to talking about the actual technical arguments :D 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 - 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/