On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 09:02:44PM -0400, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
> No dispute here. That wasn't my point. I was trying to point out that
> contrary to some of the claims here, it seems possible to me to solve
> this without creating an RTOS. I don't think anybody would consider
> IRIX an RTOS, but my understanding is that it can offer scheduling
> responses on the order of what we are talking about here.
IRIX has tried to put hard realtime into the kernel and has suffered for
it.
> The other notable player in all this, of course, is
> MontaVista. However, since they don't seem terribly concerned about
> getting their work into the mainstream kernel, its not clear that its
> that relevant to the problem at hand.
If MontaVista or other players want to maintain good latency versions
of the scheduler, then that's only a good thing and their sucesses and
failures can help move the main kernel development forwarwd.
Anyways, I've said my piece, perhaps too many times, and I'll shut up
and write some code.
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken FSMLabs: www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com FSMLabs is a servicemark and a service of VJY Associates L.L.C, New Mexico.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:09 EST