On Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 11:22:30AM +0000, Paolo Mantegazza wrote:
> 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.
I think that you need to make a much stronger case for HAL then you have
made yet. The first question is to precisely define the difference between
HAL and the current Linux/RTL design. In particular, RTL is only possible
because Linux implements "cli/sti" in a "hardware abstraction layer" called
"system.h".
> Second the concept above can be relaxed only if Linux is rewritten
> following QNX and not UNIX architecture. But that's the microkernel
That's a rather large task.
> 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. 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.
Can you point to any example of this "reluctancy"?
--- [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/
