Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261562AbVEaVwb (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 17:52:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261523AbVEaVuw (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 17:50:52 -0400 Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:17839 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261562AbVEaVrx (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 17:47:53 -0400 Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance From: Lee Revell To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Esben Nielsen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, dwalker@mvista.com, Ingo Molnar , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , Andi Kleen , "Bill Huey (hui)" , Nick Piggin , James Bruce In-Reply-To: <1117574551.5511.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1117556283.2569.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050531171143.GS5413@g5.random> <1117561379.2569.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050531175152.GT5413@g5.random> <1117564192.2569.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050531205424.GV5413@g5.random> <1117574551.5511.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:47:47 -0400 Message-Id: <1117576067.23573.16.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1391 Lines: 28 On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:22 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > I wouldn't call RTAI, RTLinux or a nano-kernel (embedded with Linux) > "Diamond" hard. Maybe "Ruby" hard, but not diamond. Remember, I use to > test code that was running airplane engines, and none of those mentioned > would qualify to run that. I think trying to make these types of distinctions is a waste of time. What matters is the MTBF of the software relative to the hardware on a given system. It would be stupid to use a commercial RTOS for a cell phone because they fall apart in a year anyway and users don't seem to care. Ditto anything running on PC hardware. For an airplane the MTBF obviously must be more in line with that hardware which hopefully is way more reliable. Only the engineer who designs the system knows for sure, so if the RT app people say PREEMPT_RT is good enough for a *very* large set of the applications that they currently need a commercial RTOS for, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. To say otherwise is to assert that you know their hardware (be it desktop PC, digital audio workstation, or airplane) better than they do. 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/