Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] IRQ threads | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:43:30 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 17:15, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > Lee Revell wrote: > My real argument was best summarized in the second paragraph, and what > I'm saying is that these approaches make the kernel's dynamic behavior > extremely complicated. And while they do contribute to making the > kernel's response time faster, they do not provided hard-rt, which is > what everyone is trying to get in the end anyway (either intentionally > or unintentionally.) > > With that, let me respond to Bill's discussion on signle vs. N kernels > as that thread is the most likely to be fruitfull. I hope you'll agree. >
Yes, agreed. I am glad this did not escalate, and I hope you can understand how I would have overlooked your actual argument due to my perceiving the first paragraph as vaguely ad hominem.
Lee
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |