Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] realtime-lsm in the kernel
From: Malcolm Baldridge (linux-audio_AT_paypc.com)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 04:02:38 EEST
> Once people see how much better it works than 2.4+ll there will be no
> stopping it.
Does it work better? I'm sure these things are changing daily, but the last
time I tested it with an oscilloscope connected to a parallel port control
line with an RTC-interrupt generated square wave toggle showed 2.4 having
less error when sampled over the course of an hour during routine system
usage testing (disk, graphics card, network I/O, etc).
>From that test, having 2.6 simply MATCH 2.4's performance would seem an
upgrade. Let alone, bettering it.
> Um, this is exactly what I said in my response to the 2.6 low latency
> thread. If you read my post I said that unless you enjoy patching and
> recompiling your kernel and living on the bleeding edge in general that
> you should wait for binary kernel packages for your distro.
> The realtime-lsm module is ~200 lines of code. What is does to the
> kernel can be summed up in one sentence.
Ah, realtime-lsm - OK, I misread the subject (semantically, obviously). My
apologies.
> Um, please reread my original post. It looks like you only read the
> first few lines.
> I am not talking about getting voluntary-preemption in
> the kernel, I am talking about the realtime-lsm module.
Yes, I did misread and assume the wrong thing about what you were referring
to. My apologies. If I could retract my post, I would. I'll just have to
put up verbal abuse as my punishment, I guess.
> Besides, your next paragraph clearly shows that you don't follow kernel
> development at all.
> Please don't try to tell me how kernel development
> works, it just makes you look clueless.
You have examples of where an end-user/application-oriented popularity poll
swung a proposed patch into being adopted by the LK maintainers? I'm all eyes.
> Please RTFS before you assume things like this, or at least read the
> freaking LKML threads. This is exactly what has been achieved.
>
> Did you just read that kernel traffic summary that was posted to
> linux-audio-user? That information is all at least a month old, a LOT
> has happened since then. Please know what you are talking about next
> time.
Bleh. Fine, it's been 3 or 4 weeks since I've last look at source. If it's
changing that wildly, my original remarks have even more pertinence, not less.
I wasn't declaring a reality, I was simply pointing out the dangers of such
unbridled enthusiasm for a relatively untested kernel branch, as emitted in
your sentence:
> Now that the final touches are being put on the 2.6 low latency
> patches, a massive migration of linux audio users to 2.6 is
> imminent.
That is all. I wasn't picking a fight here. Bleeding edgers will always be
bleeding edgers, but the "fence-sitters" who are irrationally hoping for
"newer being a better solution" might be in a for a very rude shock.
Sheesh.
=MB=
-- A focus on Quality.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 08 2004 - 04:04:23 EEST