29 Jul
2005
29 Jul
'05
4:03 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 01:40:36PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 12:43 -0400, Eric Dantan
Rzewnicki wrote:
Ok. understood regarding documentation. Can I rely on you (and perhaps
Florian) to get me up to speed on the state of things when I get back on
the 8th? i.e. "just ask here" ...?
I really appreciate all the efforts you and Florian and others have put
into pressing these issues with the kernel developers and helping others
here to test. I've tried a number of times since 2.6 came out to
participate in testing the pre-empt stuff, but mostly on my own time at
home. Often I just didn't have time to follow through as I would have
very much liked to be able. Now I'm actually _tasked_ with working on
this stuff for work, so I think I can justifiably commit significant
hours to it.
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
Is the wiki in a decently up to date state on
this stuff?
I think all the steps he mentioned are in the wiki. But it's a bad
idea
to expect any realtime preempt related site to be accurate. It changes
too fast. If you set out to document every single feature, by the time
you finished, half the doc would be obsolete. Then by the time you get
up to speed on the changes since you started the docs, 75% of your doc
would now be obsolete. Etc. Better off just spending your time testing
and writing code, to get the damn thing finished faster.
Once realtime preempt is in the Linus kernel, then it might be a good
idea to document it, because at that point they are at least committed
to keeping the userspace API stable.