Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 03:37:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 03:37:42 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:29013 "EHLO frodo.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 03:37:40 -0400 To: Daniel Phillips Cc: J Sloan , linux kernel Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Adeos nanokernel for Linux kernel In-Reply-To:

<3CFD8C07.6030607@tmsusa.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 05 Jun 2002 01:28:14 -0600 Message-ID: Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 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 Daniel Phillips writes: > Improving the average latency of systems is a worthy goal, and there's > no denying that 'sorta realtime' has its place, however it's no substitute > for the real thing. A soft realtime system screws up only on occasion, > but - bugs excepted - a hard realtime system *never* does. Engineering assumption. Your hardware and/or software always contains at least one bug. Therefore even in hard real time you must design and code for the failure case. Hard real time is just doing everything humanly possible to meet it's deadlines. The difference with soft real time, is that something that is humanly possible to do was left off. Despite the strong relationship to mathematics there are no absolutes in computer science. Especially hard real time. Eric - 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/