On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 16:08, Steven Scholz wrote:

Marius Groeger wrote:

quoted

AFAIK, you can pretty much drop the low-latency patch in favor of
using the lock-breaking patch. It is also available from Robert Love
at the cited home page.

Rob Love wrote me:

 >>Is it correct that your lock-break does basicly the same as Andrew Morton's
 >>low-latency patches? Where is the big difference?
 >
 > Yes, basically the same thing.  Lock-break is a version of low-latency
 > that is "optimized" for use with the preemptive kernel.
 >
 > You might as well just use low-latency, as Andrew is keeping that more
 > up to date.

And that's what I noticed when looking and the download pages...

That leaves three options:

 > 	(a) Use only preempt-kernel
 > 	(b) Use only low-latency
 > 	(c) Use preempt-kernel + low-latency

Right?

Yes, I use (c)


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/