Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261405AbVEaJdq (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 05:33:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261544AbVEaJdq (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 05:33:46 -0400 Received: from smtp208.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.130.116]:54428 "HELO smtp208.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261405AbVEaJdo (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 05:33:44 -0400 Message-ID: <429C2F72.7060300@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 19:33:38 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050324 Debian/1.7.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Bruce CC: "Bill Huey (hui)" , Andi Kleen , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , Ingo Molnar , dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance References: <20050527233645.GA2283@nietzsche.lynx.com> <4297EB57.5090902@yahoo.com.au> <20050528054503.GA2958@nietzsche.lynx.com> <42981467.6020409@yahoo.com.au> <4299A98D.1080805@andrew.cmu.edu> <429ADEDD.4020805@yahoo.com.au> <429B1898.8040805@andrew.cmu.edu> <429B2160.7010005@yahoo.com.au> <20050530222747.GB9972@nietzsche.lynx.com> <429BBC2D.70406@yahoo.com.au> <20050531020957.GA10814@nietzsche.lynx.com> <429C2A64.1040204@andrew.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <429C2A64.1040204@andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1390 Lines: 30 James Bruce wrote: > That said, its important not to claim something about a patch which > doesn't match the common definitions. Ingo has been very careful in the > claims he's made, but I think a lot of people have read his posts too > quickly and misinterpreted what he's claiming for the current patch. > This includes people on both sides of the fence. He's also been silent > for much of this discussion as its gotten out of hand, showing he's > clearly wiser than all of us. > I have never been in any doubt as to the specific claims I have made. I continually have been talking about hard realtime from start to finish, and it appears that everyone now agrees with me that for hard-RT, a nanokernel solution is better or at least not obviously worse at this stage. Ingo actually of course has been completely rational and honest the whole time - he actually emailed me to basically say "there will be pros and cons of both, and until things develop further I'm not completely sure". Which I was pretty satisfied with. Then along came the lynch mob. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/