Roger Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's right. But, Paul and I have been working closely with this and > > don't have much faith in the correctness of the 2.4 scheduler. > > Have you told kernel developers about this? > This can be rather critical in embedded systems.
No. It's rather difficult to prove. There's no "smoking gun". But, I have no reason to believe that it works correctly, and I suspect that it probably does not. > > What problem does this solve? > > It will better match what you think you do. > > When jackd writes in the FIFO - expect client to start. > Jackd waits for baton - wait for client to finish. > > But with jackd as highest priority: > Jackd writes to FIFO - nothing will happen for client. > Jackd _waits_ for baton - now client start, processes, finishes. I don't see why this is a problem. All this has to happen for every cycle, anyway. What difference does it make? And, why do you think we don't understand this? -- joq
