>> One important thing to remember - if you like to get broad acceptance >> you have to suggest a solution that solves these problems. I would say >> that the rt_monitor or some other means to do the same thing is >> mandatory to get that kind of acceptance. > >I don't (personally) want or need at this point in time for the solution >to have "broad acceptance", although that would be real nice. I want >something that enables me to run applications with real time priority >and memory lock as a normal user. So far the options that target both >aspects (scheduler and memory lockdown) involve a kernel patch.
i'm with fernando on this. we are not looking for broad acceptance, though it would be nice. it would be great if this showed us a config-time option for the kernel, but i think its unlikely. more likely than caps being turned on by default, though. >Of course there does not have to be just _one_ answer to the question! >Let's implement both and let the user choose according to his/her/its >needs :-) its a few lines of code to be commented in JACK. somebody try it out (its in jackd/engine.c and libjack/client.c) --p