On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:45 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > 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?
>From the patch in my last mail: http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0503.1/1921.html Lee