Subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: And kernel 2.4 ? Was: Re: RFD: Audio Needs for Kernel 2.5+
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Tue Jun 20 2000 - 22:20:42 EEST
>I am not a kernel programmer but looking at the patch,
>I think that Ingo's modifications do not make a radical change within
>the kernel.
>There are still issues with SMP in the 2.2.x patch, but sometime
>ago Ingo said for 2.3.x it would be much easier to solve.
>My proposal would be that the linux-audio community (we) should write
>a letter to the linux-kernel folks ( CCing Linus,Alan,Ingo,SCT,ecc)
>and explain the audio issue in detail asking for official statements.
Linus has made his position fairly clear. He isn't against low latency
patches, but he has a very clear idea of what he considers the "right"
kind of solution to be. There were some places where Ingo's patches
were considered OK, but many more where Linus felt that they were
fundamentally the wrong approach to take. Ingo's stuff consisted of
inserting conditional reschedules in the middle of otherwise blocking
operations. Linus wants those operations decomposed so that they don't
block in the same way. Its a fair point.
>Another proposal would be to make a sort of "low-latency/audio" petition
>and submit it to the leading linux news sites.
>That could generate some buzz and bring us some supporters.
Gack. The implicit (and sometimes explicit) motto on l-k is "write the
code". Putting pressure on people to write code for you is a bad way
to go about getting this done.
Linus has made it clear what has to be done to get his approval for LL
patches in future versions - they have to be done "right". Either
start writing the code, or start paying someone to write the code, or
convince someone else to pay someone to write the code, or wait patiently.
:)
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 22:52:39 EEST