Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Oct 2008 02:26:00 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 0/5] genirq: add infrastructure for threaded interrupt handlers |
| |
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 18:28 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Why are you bringing up real time in this thread?? The thread has > > > > absolutely nothing to do with real time. This thread is about a better > > > > way to handle interrupt handlers. > > > > > > I'm concerned about the connection between the two, which is what I'm > > > commenting on. > > > > Well, please take that up separately. Do you see these patches going > > into the -rt tree? No, they are going in mainline. We will deal with > > them for -rt when the time comes. > > It's an RFC after all, it's not going into anything at this point..
Because you are deciding what's going into mainline, right ?
> > You are bringing up concerns about mainline changes with something that > > is maintained outside the mainline tree. Changes to mainline have never > > been influenced by changes maintained outside of mainline. > > Again it's an RFC .. It's not going into mainline..
You made such a statement vs. hrtimers some time ago.
> > Yes Daniel, I know. But this is not a conversation. This is a email thread > > that is talking about changes to mainline. The mainline kernel developers > > really don't care about any issues that these changes will do to the > > real time project. The real time project is a niche, and is currently > > outside the mainline tree. Hence, lets stop bothering mainline > > developers with our issues. > > Your speaking for a lot of developers.. It's an RFC, it's coming from > real time developers, it's real time connected, and this is the real > time development list ..
This RFC patch is from a mainline developer/ maintainer who happens to be a real time developer as well.
Welcome to my real time incoherent nonsense filter
tglx
| |