Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2011-07-23 12:08:52 +0200: > On 23 July 2011 09:49, Bernardo Barros <[email protected]> wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > > Date: 2011/7/22 > > Subject: [ANNOUNCE] 3.0-rt1 > > To: LKML <[email protected]> > > Cc: linux-rt-users <[email protected]> > > > > > > Dear RT Folks, > > > > I'm pleased to announce the 3.0-rt1 release. > > > > Changes versus 3.0-rc7-rt0: > > > > * Update to Linus final 3.0 release > > > > * RTC bugfixes (scheduled for mainline/stable) > > > > * Long standing (rt only) timer_list bug (see > > timers-avoid-the-base-null-otptimization-on-rt.patch in the split > > out quilt queue) > > > > * Minor non exciting fixes all over the place > > > > Known issues: > > > > * Some weird "console=..." commandline + config dependent > > interactions which have been not yet investigated down to their > > root cause. Result in a boot hang. YMMV > > > > Patch against 3.0 can be found here: > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/patch-3.0-rt1.patch.bz2 > > > > The split quilt queue is available at: > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/patches-3.0-rt1.tar.bz2 > > > This calls for a new package name. The standard kernel will be named > "linux", so the obvious options are "linux-rt" and "linux-realtime". > Tell us which you would prefer or suggest a different suffix.
How about linux-preempt_rt since this includes the actual name of the patch. In case other rt patches exist this naming would make obvious which one is meant. Otherwise I vote for the simpler linux-rt.
