Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 23:54 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> The bottom line for me, is that T_PRIMARY, as a user-space visible
>>> "feature" should be dropped at some point, and never ever considered as
>>> a way to fix the RTDM syscall issue anymore. I don't mind saving an
>>> extra-context switch even in what I think should be _rare_ cases, but
>>> this has to be done in a way that does not introduce the same kind of
>>> misunderstanding the eager mode switching allowed by rt_task_set_mode()
>>> did in the past.
>>>
>>> Really, I'm convinced that an awful lot of people are currently running
>>> under-performing at best, or even broken applications today, because of
>>> that, thing.
>> We are not discussing T_PRIMARY here. We are discussing something like
>> an "rtdm_is_rt_capable()" addition for those _few_ RTDM drivers that
>> actually want to provide Ianus-like services.
>>
> 
> Yes, we do discuss of T_PRIMARY in between the lines.
> 

You can take it away, and the rtdm_is_rt_capable-approach would still
work, but that without affecting existing designs.

Jan