Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] lowish-latency patch and toolchain
From: Jesse Pollard (pollard_AT_tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil)
Date: Mon Jul 10 2000 - 23:57:21 EEST
"Khimenko Victor" <khim_AT_sch57.msk.ru>:
> In <20000710092651Z32202-532+21297_AT_nic.funet.fi> Juhana Sadeharju (kouhia_AT_nic.funet.fi) wrote:
>
> > I think 4 ms could be better. If we don't get any agreement we really
> > should go for the old 2 ms lowlatency patch and forget any new compromized
> > kludge.
>
> > It would be nice if Linus would allow keeping this kludge patch as
> > compilation option in Linux source tree, so that it comes with every
> > Linux distribution. That would be __a real compromize__!
>
> Huh. You joking, right ? Low-latency patch was not accepted since it'll make
> kernel maintainance nightmare (this not the only reason, but main reason).
> And this patch as kernel compilation option will affect kernel maintainance
> MORE not less then just patch without compilation option. THIS IS "a real
> compromise" ??? Gah.
I thought he may mean an option that would apply the patch to a normal
kernel. That way the patch would be matched against the distributed kernel,
but the kernel would NOT have the patch already applied.
This would have eliminated the "will affect kernel maintainance" reason,
and would not be any worse than the user having to download the patch, apply
it, and build. It would, at least, promise that the patch would apply
correctly (without patch errors), and the resulting kernel should (but not
always) run. A most "experimental" option ever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard_AT_navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 00:37:11 EEST