On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Jan de Kruyf <[email protected]> wrote:
> IF and WHEN the software can handle the mainline kernel RT effort, I > personally would change earlier rather than later. > > As an example: the whole Beagle board saga that Jon went through would not > have happened if at the time the vanilla kernel would have > been more RT aware, and the RTAPI would have been vanilla kernel aware. He > could have just built a kernel for his Beagle board! The good news are here: RT integration in the mainline kernel keeps moving ahead, and the latest 3.x kernels need less and less patches at least for Thomas Gleixner's RT subsystem. http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Log-real-time-kernel-goes-Linux-3-0-1382791.html This of course is not RTAI, so it doesn't help EMC at the moment, but it seems to me that in the long term either RTAI will benefit from the RT integration, or, if it falls behind in development, the mainstream RT could be used as target for EMC. Does it sound reasonable? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
