On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 16:08, Steven Scholz wrote: > Marius Groeger wrote: > > > AFAIK, you can pretty much drop the low-latency patch in favor of > > using the lock-breaking patch. It is also available from Robert Love > > at the cited home page. > > Rob Love wrote me: > > >>Is it correct that your lock-break does basicly the same as Andrew Morton's > >>low-latency patches? Where is the big difference? > > > > Yes, basically the same thing. Lock-break is a version of low-latency > > that is "optimized" for use with the preemptive kernel. > > > > You might as well just use low-latency, as Andrew is keeping that more > > up to date. > > And that's what I noticed when looking and the download pages... > > That leaves three options: > > > (a) Use only preempt-kernel > > (b) Use only low-latency > > (c) Use preempt-kernel + low-latency > > Right?
Yes, I use (c) ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/