Jack O'Quin wrote: > > At this point, I'm mainly interested in results using 2.6.11-rc3-mm2, > because that is the exact version Andrew is merging with the mainline > kernel. Only those comfortable with and interested in building > development kernels should try that. > > The main reason we asked Andrew to include this LSM in the kernel is > that it's difficult to keep patches working as each new kernel version > comes out. Once in the kernel tree, that happens automatically. > > Many kernel developers opposed this. It *is* something of a hack. > But, no one has been able to come up with a better solution, and this > one at least looks safe. I expect it to be replaced by something > better in the 2.8 timeframe. OK. I'm quite happy with Ingo's RT patch /and/ the realtime-lsm module. I am currently running 2.6.11-rc4-RT-V0.7.39-01 on my laptop (P4/UP) and on my desktop (P4/SMP-HT). And this is all about PREEMPT_RT=y. FYI the realtime-lsm module is now being provided by the broken out patch from 2.6.11-rc3-mm2, and it builds and works fine, as ever expected :) To speak the truth :) I can't live without this patch combination anymore. Its been a long way, not without drawbacks. On my hardware setup, nowadays I already consider those pretty stable to my standards -- already in production status to me. That's mostly why I don't have a point to test on 2.6.11-rc3-mm2, but I took the rt-lsm.patch from it, if that's of any help. Cheers. -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rncbc@xxxxxxxxx
