Well,
regarding these messages on the list I do have some questions/problems. These
might be due to my education as a chemist and not having learned CS in first
instance.
On Don, 11 Mär 1999 Paolo Mantegazza wrote:
>it seems that somebody is interested to discuss the RTL architecture,
>and a few even in favor of the HAL/RTAI idea.
What's that HAL/RTAI idea ? (Well, Hardware Abstraction Layert is ok, but what
does RTAI mean, how is it related ?)
>First I do not think that 2.4.xx should include a native hard real time
>support but should definetly go to a modularization based on the
>HAL/RTAI concept. Unfortunatly I am unable to contact "LINUS_GOD who art
>in heaven" to have him evaluate the idea.
But probably the RT-Linux source could be distributed with the standard kernel?
Not saying it should show up in make *config, still you just grab the kernel
and get all you need for RTL as well ?
Or would that mean to much interconnections between Standard- and RT-Linux ?
Shouldn't any modularization/HAL/... concept aim at this kind of independence ?
>Third I do not want to be the focus of anything in RTL community. In my
>message I stated that the NMT "promogeniture" (read it: the right of
>Victor & C. to be the refrees of a bazaar develpment of RTL) should be a
>firm point.
Absolutely.
> What I complain about is their reluctancy to accept the
>bazaar, as any change and discussion about the basics are rare and RTL
>remain primarely an NMT effort based on NMT ideas.
Agreed.
I would like to see a RT-Linux cvs archive with anonymous read-access. ( There
should actually be some heavy tagging so to be able to easily check out
different versions/releases. )
Then people could really follow development if they want to work on the code,
others just stay to the releases :-)
Again: I would suggest that only the NMT people do have write access, everbody
alse send in patches.
>The point
>is that the discussions I would like within in this group should be.
>also but not only, of the type: is it necessary to patch that and this?
>why an UP machine has less jitter that a standard dual SMP? What happen
>if we overload the apic bus in real time applications? And many others
>of the same kind.
On a similar topic:
What's going on with the RT-Linux manual.
That was a nice idea, but it looks like work only was done for a few months.
I send in updates to the rt_com section several times, they never show up in
the manual though. There seem to be no changes at all.
Actually that (the sgml source) could be put into cvs as well, here probably all
section-authors can have write access. Then the html and ps manuals could be
recreated automatically once a week/every day and put onto the web page - by a
robot.
Greetings,
Jochen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jochen Küpper
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Institut für Physikalische Chemie I
Universitätsstr. 1, Geb 26.43 Raum 02.29 phone ++49-211-8113681
40225 Düsseldorf fax ++49-211-8115195
Germany http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~jochen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
