Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
