On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM Julia Cartwright <julia@xxxxxx> wrote: > Most of the major vendors make available RT variants in their official > repos, have you checked with them? > Thank you Julia. I do not believe that they have an rt variant (although I can push on that when my FAE returns from vacation next week). > I'm in the process of cooking up a version on top of v4.9.116 this week. > This doesn't directly address your problem, as it still may not apply > on top of your v4.9.109 vendor kernel, but might get you closer. Wow! That's timely. I'm rebasing v4.9-rt on top of v4.9.109 now. If that blows up in my face, I'll look for your patch and try again. (That will be plan C.) It turns out that there is a v4.9.87-rt65 in the linux-rt tree, but it doesn't apply to the linux-at91 tree because they have a customized variant of kernel/softirq.c. (They had to revert an earlier commit on mainline). Since I am likely to want a newer kernel in the future anyway, I figured I would try the rebase effort first, and have the create-a-patch-to-revert-the-revert approach as a plan B. --wpd -- 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
