From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_24_48,
	INVALID_DATE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NO_RELAYS autolearn=unavailable
	autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0
Received: from drobbins by cvs.gentoo.org with local (Exim 3.30 #1)
	id 15qPPZ-0003Vh-00
	for gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2001 19:40:53 -0600
From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Low Latency Patches
Message-ID: <20011007194053.B10251@cvs.gentoo.org>
References: <LPEPJAAKMIEGAPJNDPPAMECMCCAA.erik@vanreeth.org> <20011007101508.K6132@cvs.gentoo.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20011007101508.K6132@cvs.gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22i
Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org
Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-request@cvs.gentoo.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://cvs.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@cvs.gentoo.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux development list <gentoo-dev.cvs.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://cvs.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@cvs.gentoo.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://cvs.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/>
Date: Sun Oct  7 19:41:01 2001
X-Original-Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 19:40:53 -0600
X-Archives-Salt: a8c0a7d6-fb44-428f-9220-4478b1e46ae4
X-Archives-Hash: 095c5291d46d717ea4a289e470d8c7e4

On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 10:15:08AM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 04:05:25PM +0200, Erik Van Reeth wrote:
> 
> > Just a question : can one use the preemptive kernel patch and the low latency
> > patch of Andrew Morton together or is the preemptive better than the other
> > one.
> 
> They should work together.  I just applied the scheduling latency patch to my
> preemptive 2.4.10 sources, and I got no rejects.  They should complement each
> other, if I understand it correctly.  However, I haven't tested the kernel yet,
> but I will this afternoon.  If they work together, this will be one hot kernel.

The low latency patches and the preempt patches work great together.  I'll roll
these into 2.4.10-r2 and have it on rsync within minutes (I hope :).

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President			http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.