Pradyumna Sampath wrote: > I agree. Hard, soft ... far too qualitative for a discussion like > this. Numbers, test cases and applications determine different > meanings of these words. Right. Hard and Soft realtime discussions end up always in useless infinite loops. The *applications*' *requirements* are hard or soft. These requirements reflect in the OS, the CPU, the IO devices, and more typically a convolution of all of them, depending on what the application does, i.e., the actual sequence of computations, OS syscalls, IO operations and so on... > Top copy a phrase from one of the presentations from dresden. Which presentation? I am curious to read it. > Real-time need not always be real fast. "Real fast is not real-time" is a catchy phrase which comes from this very old workshop: http://www.langston.com/Papers/uk.pdf I used it to motivate an investigation in the real-time properties of a "real fast" microkernel: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/es/2008/234710.abs.html Have fun! Sergio -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
