Marius Groeger wrote: > AFAIK, you can pretty much drop the low-latency patch in favor of > using the lock-breaking patch. It is also available from Robert Love > at the cited home page.
Rob Love wrote me: >>Is it correct that your lock-break does basicly the same as Andrew Morton's >>low-latency patches? Where is the big difference? > > Yes, basically the same thing. Lock-break is a version of low-latency > that is "optimized" for use with the preemptive kernel. > > You might as well just use low-latency, as Andrew is keeping that more > up to date. And that's what I noticed when looking and the download pages... That leaves three options: > (a) Use only preempt-kernel > (b) Use only low-latency > (c) Use preempt-kernel + low-latency Right? -- Steven Scholz imc Measurement & Control imc Me?systeme GmbH Voltastr. 5 Voltastr. 5 13355 Berlin 13355 Berlin Germany Deutschland fon: +49 30 467090-0 Tel: 030 / 467090-0 fax: +49 30 4631576 fax: 030 / 4631576 ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
