On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 21:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Clearly threading irq handlers does have something to do with real 
> > > > > time, unless this patch isn't actually threading anything ..
> > 
> > Well, that's clearly wrong: threaded IRQ handlers are not tied to 
> > real-time in any way. Yes, they can be used for RT too but as far as the 
> > upstream kernel is involved that's at most an afterthought.
> 
> You contradict yourself .. I said "Clearly threading irq handlers does

No he did not.

quoted text
> have something to do with real time" then you say "they can be used for 
> RT too" .. So my comments are clearly correct , they have "something" to
> do with real time. There exists a relationship of some kind or type.


What Ingo is telling you is:

  - RT needs threaded interrupts.

  - Threaded interrupts do not need RT

My dog is an Italian Greyhound.

Italian Greyhound is a dog, but
a dog is not an Italian Greyhound.

-- Steve

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/