On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
[realtime-lsm not going to be adopted to mainline kernel...]
It's a tough call because although the LSM approach clearly is more
immediately user friendly, the nice and RT prio limits are a better
designed solution. If your distro sets everything up right (a
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 21:46, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
If someone sets up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
If someone sets up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please stop this arrogant lkml-people
On 08/04/05 21:54:30, Jean-Marc Valin quoted a conversation with Con
Kolivas:
con aah record
con that's not normal desktop usage
con see what I'm getting at?
con you're claiming it is required for ordinary audio playback
con it is most definitely not required for ordinary audio playback
OK,
Hi,
After the debate regarding inclusion of realtime-lsm in the main tree,
it seems like other approaches to unprivileged real-time have shown up.
Both Con Kolivas and Ingo Molnar have come up with different (cleaner to
the kernel developers) solutions. Both are described at:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 05:12 -0400, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Right now, Con's patch does 1 and 3, while Ingo's does 1 and 2 (though
Con says Ingo's patch could also do 3).
Ingo's patch allows 3 to be done in userspace, by an RT watchdog
process that runs as root, and wakes occasionally to check
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 10:32, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 05:12 -0400, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Right now, Con's patch does 1 and 3, while Ingo's does 1 and 2 (though
Con says Ingo's patch could also do 3).
Ingo's patch allows 3 to be done in userspace, by an RT watchdog
process
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:31, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm, I'm getting really confused, I thought that the realtime lsm was
the one that was in 'mm (maybe none of them are?). Finally I found the
followup article on lwn that mentioned this:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 14:31 -0500, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm, I'm getting really confused, I thought that the realtime lsm was
the one that was in 'mm (maybe none of them are?). Finally I found the
followup article on lwn that mentioned this:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:45 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:31, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm, I'm getting really confused, I thought that the realtime lsm was
the one that was in 'mm (maybe none of them are?).
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:31, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Instead, they propose an rlimits extension for granting
per-user realtime scheduling privileges. This does (barely) meet our
minimum needs.
I have not followed the details, I presume this could
The kernel developers have decided not to merge the realtime-lsm,
after all. Instead, they propose an rlimits extension for granting
per-user realtime scheduling privileges. This does (barely) meet our
minimum needs.
It is inferior to the realtime-lsm solution for several reasons I feel
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 16:14 -0400, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
As far as I see it, we'll at least get listened to by Con, Ingo and
Andrew Morton. I've had a long discussion with Con recently and from his
point of view, the problem is that not enough people ask (loud enough)
for such features. For
Hi,
I think a part of the conversation I had with Con Kolivas may be of
interest here:
jmspeex I still don't understand why this [unprivileged real-time]
hasn't gone in the kernel a long time ago.
con demand
con noone demands it
con no distro needs it
con no market for it
con noone coded it
con
As far as I see it, we'll at least get listened to by Con, Ingo and
Andrew Morton. I've had a long discussion with Con recently and from his
point of view, the problem is that not enough people ask (loud enough)
for such features. For instance, I'm still the first and only user of
his real-time
I'm serious, mailing lists are not enough. We need a permanent page with
instructions on making the noise so that the people who are *not yet*
fully jumping ship to linux can say to the developers, that is what
will make me abandon OSX. Those people aren't on mailing lists yet but
they still
This is a really good point. I mean, how many of the people on
linux-*user* have written to the kernel people making noise? How many
even know how to do that? I know I don't, and I know tons of musicians
are just starting to take a serious look at linux in the last year, so
the
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 17:18 -0400, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
It's not just for musicians/technicians and right
now there are lots of limitations that are caused by the poor
unprivileged latency. Any other example?
CD burning has an obvious real time constraint. cdrecord actually
prints a warning
If someone sets up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please stop this arrogant lkml-people attitude, it won't help.
Second, I would think that
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
This is a really good point. I mean, how many of the people on
linux-*user* have written to the kernel people making noise? How many
even know how to do that? I know I don't, and I know tons of musicians
are just starting to take a serious look at linux in the last year,
Why do you want letters from project maintainers only? Don't you want
user letters as well?
Iain
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
If someone sets up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and
Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
If someone sets up this forum, and more than twice of us sign
up, that should show those arrogant lklm-people that there are really
_a lot_ of us, and that we are strong, and very angry. Hah!
First, please stop this arrogant lkml-people attitude, it won't help.
Jean-Marc Valin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, please stop this arrogant lkml-people attitude, it won't help.
Second, I would think that instead of a petition with just lots of names
on it, I would prefer a letter signed by the maintainers of as many
Linux projects as possible, i.e. not
i would have though a petition from *users* who have gone through the
hell of trying to set up their linux system for audio would be a *lot*
better than, from what i can tell, is an already exhausted path ...
i'm sure the maintainers/developers of linux audio projects could give a
lot more
If being an audio developer carried any weight with these people,
you'd think they would listen to Paul Davis or Lee Revell or me. They
don't.
Then, they might listen to Paul Davis, Lee Revell, you, me, authors of
Vorbis, Theora, GnomeMeeting, and so on at the same time.
Con Kolivas is one
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 23:23 -0400, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
If being an audio developer carried any weight with these people,
you'd think they would listen to Paul Davis or Lee Revell or me. They
don't.
Then, they might listen to Paul Davis, Lee Revell, you, me, authors of
Vorbis, Theora,
26 matches
Mail list logo
