On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:31, Jack O'Quin wrote: > Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hmmm, I'm getting really confused, I thought that the realtime lsm was > > the one that was in 'mm (maybe none of them are?). Finally I found the > > followup article on lwn that mentioned this: > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/121887/ > > > > "...The end result is that the rlimit patch has come back out of -mm..." > > > > Maybe it was put back again afterwards? (this was reported on February > > 10). Hard to follow all that's happening... > > Difficult and frustrating. > > The kernel developers have decided not to merge the realtime-lsm, > after all.
Sigh... again? :-[ :-{ :-< > Instead, they propose an rlimits extension for granting > per-user realtime scheduling privileges. This does (barely) meet our > minimum needs. I have not followed the details, I presume this could be per-group, right? What are the details on how use will be controlled, if you care to comment (PAM?)? You would not have a thread url by chance? > It is inferior to the realtime-lsm solution for several reasons I feel > too tired and discouraged to repeat again here. (Those who care > should look the discussion up in the LKML archives.) It all smells > like NIH syndrome to me (Not Invented Here). Since their solution > won't be available for end-users until all the shells and PAM modules > have been updated and everyone has upgraded to new distributions, I'll > continue supporting the SourceForge realtime-lsm package for another > year or two, as long as we still need it. Very grateful that you are going to do that... I guess I'll have to continue churning out kernels that include it. > I came away dissatisfied with the whole experience. There are a > number of very good Linux kernel developers, but they tend to get > outshouted by a large crowd of arrogant fools. Trying to communicate > user requirements to these people is a waste of time. They are much > too "intelligent" to listen to lesser mortals. I read through several threads (I'm not in lkml, sorry) and that is also the impression I get. I'm really impressed by all the efforts you and many others have made to make linux usable out of the box for pro-audio (whatever that is) and for mere "mortals". -- Fernando