Jack O'Quin wrote:
>
> At this point, I'm mainly interested in results using 2.6.11-rc3-mm2,
> because that is the exact version Andrew is merging with the mainline
> kernel. Only those comfortable with and interested in building
> development kernels should try that.
>
> The main reason we asked Andrew to include this LSM in the kernel is
> that it's difficult to keep patches working as each new kernel version
> comes out. Once in the kernel tree, that happens automatically.
>
> Many kernel developers opposed this. It *is* something of a hack.
> But, no one has been able to come up with a better solution, and this
> one at least looks safe. I expect it to be replaced by something
> better in the 2.8 timeframe.
OK. I'm quite happy with Ingo's RT patch /and/ the realtime-lsm module. I
am currently running 2.6.11-rc4-RT-V0.7.39-01 on my laptop (P4/UP) and on
my desktop (P4/SMP-HT). And this is all about PREEMPT_RT=y.
FYI the realtime-lsm module is now being provided by the broken out patch
from 2.6.11-rc3-mm2, and it builds and works fine, as ever expected :)
To speak the truth :) I can't live without this patch combination anymore.
Its been a long way, not without drawbacks. On my hardware setup, nowadays
I already consider those pretty stable to my standards -- already in
production status to me.
That's mostly why I don't have a point to test on 2.6.11-rc3-mm2, but I
took the rt-lsm.patch from it, if that's of any help.
Cheers.
-- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rncbc@email-addr-hiddenReceived on Mon Feb 14 16:15:03 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 14 2005 - 16:15:04 EET