27 Nov
2003
27 Nov
'03
7:35 a.m.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen
<k.s.matheussen(a)notam02.no> writes:
So how is the low-latency situation for 2.6? I did install 2.6 on
my private machine, but was not able to get better performance
than 2.4 with ll+pre (kicked out of jack-graph pretty soon with 128
frames period). Is there a trick to get better lowlatency performance with
2.6 I don't know about?
--
I still like a module idea though. I dont see the
point of
patching the kernel with the security module interface, except for the
security. What I would like, though, is:
This idea makes sense. If there is a requirement for clean, on-going
support on 2.4, the advantages you mention are significant.
Right now, I anticipate all new multimedia distributions using 2.6 as
soon as it is officially released. To my mind that makes the whole
module discussion moot. The LSM approach is clearly the preferred
method of doing these things in the 2.6 world.