Re: RT patch acceptance

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Oh OK, I didn't realise it is aiming for hard RT. Cool! but
> that wasn't so much the main point I was trying to make...
> 
> >so it's well worth the effort, but there's no hurry and all the changes 
> >are incremental anyway. I can understand Daniel's desire for more action 
> >(he's got a product to worry about), but upstream isnt ready for this 
> >yet.
> >
> 
> Basically the same questions I think will still be up for debate. Not 
> that I want to start now, nor do I really have any feelings on the 
> matter yet (other than I'm glad you're not in a hurry :)).

i expect it to be pretty much like voluntary-preempt: there was much 
flaming 9 months ago and by today 99% of the voluntary-preempt patches 
are already in the upstream kernel and the remaining 1% (which just adds 
the config option and touches one include file) i didnt submit yet.

so i dont think there's much need to worry or even to decide anything 
upfront: the merge is already happening. The two biggest preconditions 
of PREEMPT_RT, the irq subsystem rewrite, and the spinlock-init API 
cleanups are already upstream. The rest is just details or out-of-line 
code. The discussions need to happen in small isolated steps, as the 
component technologies are merged and discussed. The components are all 
useful even without the final PREEMPT_RT step (which further proves the 
usefulness of PREEMPT_RT - but you dont have to agree with that global 
assertion).

So i'm afraid nothing radical will happen anywhere. Maybe we can have 
one final flamewar-party in the end when the .config options are about 
to be added, just for nostalgia, ok? =B-)

	Ingo
-
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/