>Poor example. Both Windows and MacOS are highly amenable to kernel hacks.
>Now if you wanted to say a software modem was available for NeXT, this
>would be more interesting. (In fact, I believe NeXT included a software
>modem from the beginning -- but it only ran at 300 baud. Not so
>interesting after all.)
That's what I meant: with such a poor kernel as MacOS, it works fine, so
nothing impossible for something like linux...
>Yes, that's part of it, but another part is sufficient RT support to
>explain to the kernel that this process has priority, and, conversely,
>explain when a slightly lossy modem is OK. Remember, you aren't just
>getting the data here and back again, but doing a bit of math on it in the
>meantime.
Yes, of course. But here again, you can trick things by doing most work
in the interrupt handler. This is not "good" from a design point of view
and it slows down the entire operating system, but it actually works.
Having RT in the kernel is better, but doing without is possible.
--
E-Mail: <mailto:bh40@calva.net>
BenH. Web : <http://calvaweb.calvacom.fr/bh40/>
-
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/