Re: RT patch acceptance

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 10:41 -0500, K.R. Foley wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> > K.R. Foley wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> There are definitely those who would prefer to have the functionality,
> >> at least as an option, in the mainline kernel. The group that I contract
> >> for get heartburn about having to patch every kernel running on every
> >> development workstation and every production system. We need hard RT,
> >> but currently when we have to have hard RT we go with a different
> >> product.
> > 
> > 
> > Well, yes. There are lots of things Linux isn't suited for.
> > There are likewise a lot of patches that SGI would love to
> > get into the kernel so it runs better on their 500+ CPU
> > systems. My point was just that a new functionality/feature
> > doesn't by itself justify being included in the kernel.org
> > kernel.
> 
> Agreed. Maybe the Linux kernel can't be all things to all of us, even as 
> configuration options. I am certainly not the one who is going to make 
> that decision either. I just wanted voice my opinion from a 
> user/developer perspective.

I disagree .. The perspective I got from Andrew Morton was that if
enough people want a feature it will/should go in. I agree with that. If
a new feature is added , it just makes a larger download (as long as
it's a configure option). I don't see a downside.


Daniel

-
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/