don't be humbled, I may be wrong.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:35:48AM -0700, Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:38:30AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You could have asked me: aside from getting wierd OS failures (which is
> > always fun) there is a really interesting area in which "soft" realtime
> > applications interact with hard realtime applications: e.g. hard RT
> > collects frames, feeds them to a soft RT which does some mixing, and hard
> > RT outputs.
> > I think that the area in which hard and soft RT cooperate is one of the most
> > important research&development areas in OS.
>
> I stand humbled. My apologies if I seemed overly negative towards the
> question of using the low latency patch. It's just that it seems like
> applications that require low latency could be deftly handled by using hard
> real time, and the low latency patch has a lot of provisos for its use. There
> was much discussion on the Linux kernel list about the issues that the low
> latency patch raised. While many people said that it Worked For Them(tm), it
> looked like the patch would not be compatible with many drivers and perhaps
> even platforms (did anyone ever test the patch on anything besides ia32?).
> However, if you get the low latency patch and our RTLinux patch to
> apply cleanly and work, all the more power to you. I'd be interested to hear
> how it works out.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
