>> Now, where does it say anything about "bounded latencies". By what
>> authority? Since I defined realtime, I would like to know how
>> an additional definition got appended to destroy the concept.
>
> I think we're on different wavelengths: "realtime" does have a meaning
> outside any definition you choose for it. I'm used to a particular
> definition for "realtime", and of course if we use yours then my
> comments are meaningless.
We must use his if you won't post yours.
> But how can you promise the customer that your system will respond to
> events while they are current if you DON'T control the latency?
You must be building your own motherboards, right? You can not make
honest promises with hardware that might frequently retry to hide
error conditions from the OS. The BIOS could even use a system management
mode to steal cycles.
I think this whole argument is silly. The goal should be "improve".
There is no perfection. Think in terms of histograms with infinitely
long tails that need to be squished as flat as possible. Every bit
of improvement is useful -- maybe Linux goes from 5000 ruined CDs/year
to 4352 ruined CDs/year. Good.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/