Re: RT patch acceptance

[Nick Piggin]

James Bruce wrote:

> That said, its important not to claim something about a patch which 
> doesn't match the common definitions.  Ingo has been very careful in the 
> claims he's made, but I think a lot of people have read his posts too 
> quickly and misinterpreted what he's claiming for the current patch. 
> This includes people on both sides of the fence.  He's also been silent 
> for much of this discussion as its gotten out of hand, showing he's 
> clearly wiser than all of us.

I have never been in any doubt as to the specific claims I have
made. I continually have been talking about hard realtime from
start to finish, and it appears that everyone now agrees with me
that for hard-RT, a nanokernel solution is better or at least
not obviously worse at this stage.

Ingo actually of course has been completely rational and honest
the whole time - he actually emailed me to basically say "there
will be pros and cons of both, and until things develop further
I'm not completely sure".

Which I was pretty satisfied with. Then along came the lynch mob.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/