On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 03:23:38PM +0200, Herman Bruyninckx wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Phil Wilshire wrote:
>
> > > Phil,
> > > I hope you can comment on my comment on this post of yours...
> >
> > Yes by all means...
> [...about fifos...]
> > Delighted to have a discussion on this..
> Thanks for your answers (and Stuart and Victor too!) which make things a
> lot clearer to me :-) But one thing still bothers me a bit: I am confused
> about where I should go to have a fifo/IPC implementation that will last,
> and that won't change its API too soon... Would it be too stupid an idea to
> have IPC separated from the real time kernel(s), just as Comedi does it
> for hardware device drivers? (In my opinion, IPC is ``just'' a device,
> except that is available completely in software...)
The rtf semantics of RTLinux has never changed and will not change in our releases.
We will make alternatives available, but we make great efforts to assure that programs
written under previous releases will work without change on new releases and that
any new functionality is something that once must choose to use.
If anyone finds some codes that do not meet this criteria, please please contact me.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
FSMLabs: www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
FSMLabs is a servicemark and a service of
VJY Associates L.L.C, New Mexico.
-- [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/
