On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I still like a module idea though. I dont see the point of > > patching the kernel with the security module interface, except for the > > security. What I would like, though, is: > > This idea makes sense. If there is a requirement for clean, on-going > support on 2.4, the advantages you mention are significant. > > Right now, I anticipate all new multimedia distributions using 2.6 as > soon as it is officially released. To my mind that makes the whole > module discussion moot. The LSM approach is clearly the preferred > method of doing these things in the 2.6 world. > So how is the low-latency situation for 2.6? I did install 2.6 on my private machine, but was not able to get better performance than 2.4 with ll+pre (kicked out of jack-graph pretty soon with 128 frames period). Is there a trick to get better lowlatency performance with 2.6 I don't know about? --
