* Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For example above you bascially only state that your clock event source
> > is superior and the correct way of doing this without any explanation why
> > (and the "No, thanks." doesn't exactly imply that you're even interested
> > in alternatives).
>
> The question arises, who is not interested in alternatives. You are
> well aware about the efforts others made, but you don't even think
> about working together with them. Do you really expect people to jump
> on your train, when you entirely ignore their work and efforts and
> just propose your own view of the world?
>
> I did nowhere say that I'm not interested in alternative solutions.
> You interpret it into my words for whatever reason.
just to explain it to everyone: the code Thomas refers to and which we
are working on is John's GTOD patchset with Thomas' high-resolution
timers patches ontop of it. [all of that (and more) is glued together in
the -rt tree as well].
Thomas' hrtimers queue (ontop of 2.6.16) is a practical, working
implementation of the clock-event design Thomas is talking about,
resulting in a working high-resolution timers solution that spans all
the relevant Linux APIs: nanosleep() and POSIX timers. So Thomas'
arguments derive straight from that experience.
for more details, the latest hrtimers code can be found at:
http://tglx.de/projects/hrtimers
the merge of the hrtimers subsystem into 2.6.16 was just the first step,
and the next steps are expressed in the patches above.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
