On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 20:05, Eric Valette wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > > To summarize my views here: > > > > o Yes, RTAI might work with X if your X driver does not fiddle with the > > same stuff that RTAI does, basically: on-boad/on-cpu timer or interrupt > > mask at CPU level (and a few other bus-related things I guess). Wrt to > > the latter, I guess that we both know why iopl() was implemented in the > > first place... > > o Indeed, I've experimented many crashes while transitioning back and > > forth X and non-X displays while a RTAI app was running. > > Latency is one thing, crash is another one. If I need X and it introduce > latency, I can choose. If it crash dead like any veusvio version I have > tested so far it is different.
Patches welcome. > NB :I knox it is alpha at the moment but > I want a 2.6 kernel for NPTL, premption patches, low latency patche and > other O(1) scheduler for regular apps... > > > o No, I cannot recommend using X blindly with RTAI, because I would have > > to know about the implementation of all pre-compiled drivers (which > > makes your USB argument irrelevant since USB support is compiled from > > kernel sources in any case, so it cannot remain in our way wrt interrupt > > handling). Any source for the NVidia ones btw? > > Even the linux kernel team does not gprovide any quarenty with binary > only drivers. That's not what I am asking... -- Philippe.
