On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:18:09 -0500 Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My understanding is that it is best to apply both. I have run both the > preempt and lowlatency patches on kernels ranging from 2.4.16 ( at least > , probably earlier) through 2.4.22 with very good results. Thanks. It just concerned me that in the online discussion of low latency patches, there was lots of "which one is better." The only discussion of *both* was in the linked-to threads from the LKML, where it was discussed back in 2001 that they were in-principle compatible and *could* be combined. I knew that all this stuff, plus the O(1) scheduler, had made it into 2.6; but I'm holding off on 2.6 until 1) I see a nice "how to transition from 2.4. to 2.6" guide, and 2) I stop seeing so many complaints about getting things to work under 2.6 here and in debian-user. I use this machine for too much time-critical stuff to hunt for kernel installation stuff just now . . . Anyway, I patched my 2.4.23 with both and will boot it later today. Thanks again. -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20040214/210f875b/attachment-0001.bin
