Re: RT patch acceptance

[Bill Huey (hui) <bhuey@lnxw.com>]

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 04:44:04PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> That's a good reason why it should be included. The maintainers know
> that as developers there is no way for us to flush out all the bugs in
> our code by ourselves. If the RT patch was added to -mm it would have
> greatly increased coverage which , as you noted, is needed . Drivers
> will break like mad , but no one but the community has all the hardware
> for the drivers.

It's too premature at this time. There was a lot of work that went
into the RT patch that I would have like for folks to have thought
it through more carefully like RCU, the RT mutex itself, etc...
All of it is very raw and most likely still is subject to rapid
change.

It conflicts with the sched domain and RCU changes at this time
so integration with -mm is highly problematic. -mm is too massive
as is for anything like the RT patch to go in. I've already tried
merging these trees in usig Monotone as my backing SCM and came
to this conclusion.

I consider the RT patch to be for front line folks only at this
time. Give it another 6 months or so since people are having enough
problems with 2.6.11.x

bill
-
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/