30 Dec
2004
30 Dec
'04
2:17 a.m.
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando(a)ccrma.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 17:30 -0800, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> This user like many others is confusing the realtime preempt patches
> with the realtime LSM. You should point this out (I am not on the CCRMA
> list). The current version of the realtime LSM kernel patch applies
> cleanly against 2.6.10.
It's easy to get mixed up about all this stuff. That's why getting
good realtime support in the base kernel is such good news.
On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 18:29, Lee Revell wrote:
I guess he was referring to the kernel he built (without the
realtime-lsm). I'll clarify this point in the Planet CCRMA list...
I just booted into 2.6.10 + realtime-lsm, not bad at all in some very
informal jack tests (run jack at 2x128 + ardour + hydrogen + freqtweak).
I'll leave a full build chugging along all night long, should have fresh
packages to test/release tomorrow :-)
I just built 2.6.10 with the realtime-lsm built in (the capability LSM
is *not* included). It seems to work fine at -p64. No xruns so far
(under light load). This is really wonderful. Ingo, Andrew, Linus
and all the other kernel developers can be really proud of this
release.
Our existing realtime-lsm kernel patch works unchanged with this
kernel (I just made a link to it with a shorter name)...
http://www.joq.us/realtime/linux-2.6.0-rt2.patch.gz
We're hoping to get this included in 2.6.11.
--
joq