Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261240AbVFAChH (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 22:37:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261241AbVFAChH (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 22:37:07 -0400 Received: from fsmlabs.com ([168.103.115.128]:11459 "EHLO fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261240AbVFAChB (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 22:37:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 20:38:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: Steven Rostedt cc: Lee Revell , 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 Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance In-Reply-To: <1117582887.4749.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: 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> <1117576067.23573.16.camel@mindpipe> <1117582887.4749.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1596 Lines: 30 On Tue, 31 May 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:47 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > > 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. > > Agreed. I only brought up the stupid names just to show that there's > not a black and white aspect to what RT is. It's mainly a black art > since there's no way to know how many bugs a program has, and how do you > truly calculate the MTBF, other than running it on the hardware itself? This discussion has digressed even further beyond hard/soft realtime to reliability and fault tolerance (airplane engine), which is not the same thing. - 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/