> Once people see how much better it works than 2.4+ll there will be no > stopping it. Does it work better? I'm sure these things are changing daily, but the last time I tested it with an oscilloscope connected to a parallel port control line with an RTC-interrupt generated square wave toggle showed 2.4 having less error when sampled over the course of an hour during routine system usage testing (disk, graphics card, network I/O, etc). >From that test, having 2.6 simply MATCH 2.4's performance would seem an upgrade. Let alone, bettering it. > Um, this is exactly what I said in my response to the 2.6 low latency > thread. If you read my post I said that unless you enjoy patching and > recompiling your kernel and living on the bleeding edge in general that > you should wait for binary kernel packages for your distro. > The realtime-lsm module is ~200 lines of code. What is does to the > kernel can be summed up in one sentence. Ah, realtime-lsm - OK, I misread the subject (semantically, obviously). My apologies. > Um, please reread my original post. It looks like you only read the > first few lines. > I am not talking about getting voluntary-preemption in > the kernel, I am talking about the realtime-lsm module. Yes, I did misread and assume the wrong thing about what you were referring to. My apologies. If I could retract my post, I would. I'll just have to put up verbal abuse as my punishment, I guess. > Besides, your next paragraph clearly shows that you don't follow kernel > development at all. > Please don't try to tell me how kernel development > works, it just makes you look clueless. You have examples of where an end-user/application-oriented popularity poll swung a proposed patch into being adopted by the LK maintainers? I'm all eyes. > Please RTFS before you assume things like this, or at least read the > freaking LKML threads. This is exactly what has been achieved. > > Did you just read that kernel traffic summary that was posted to > linux-audio-user? That information is all at least a month old, a LOT > has happened since then. Please know what you are talking about next > time. Bleh. Fine, it's been 3 or 4 weeks since I've last look at source. If it's changing that wildly, my original remarks have even more pertinence, not less. I wasn't declaring a reality, I was simply pointing out the dangers of such unbridled enthusiasm for a relatively untested kernel branch, as emitted in your sentence: > Now that the final touches are being put on the 2.6 low latency > patches, a massive migration of linux audio users to 2.6 is > imminent. That is all. I wasn't picking a fight here. Bleeding edgers will always be bleeding edgers, but the "fence-sitters" who are irrationally hoping for "newer being a better solution" might be in a for a very rude shock. Sheesh. =MB= -- A focus on Quality.
