Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Kernel 2.4 low-latency patches -- combining?
From: Eric Dantan Rzewnicki (eric_AT_zhevny.com)
Date: Sat Feb 14 2004 - 06:18:09 EET
My understanding is that it is best to apply both. I have run both the
preempt and lowlatency patches on kernels ranging from 2.4.16 ( at least
, probably earlier) through 2.4.22 with very good results.
In the 2.6.x kernel series both sets of patches are included as
standard. Most of the lowlatency patches (if i understand correctly)
were merged into the 2.6.1 code base. The preempt patch has been in the
kernel as a configuration option since sometime in the 2.5.x development
series.
-Eric Rz
Chris Metzler wrote:
> Hi. I've read the stuff on the LAD website about the two low-latency
> patch options for the 2.4 kernels -- Robert Love's preempt patch and
> Andrew Morton's low-latency patch. Each are described as having
> good and bad points in comparison. The way in which it's discussed
> seems to suggest that one should choose one or the other; nowhere is
> discussed whether it's a good or bad idea to apply both. But that
> seems to be possible; the Debian package page for AM's low-latency
> kernel patch indicates that it's compatible with the preempt patch.
>
> So I guess I'm looking for advice about this. Are they indeed
> compatible? Is there some reason why applying *both* would be a bad
> thing?
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> -c
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Feb 14 2004 - 06:16:43 EET