The future of realtime Linux in doubt

Posted Jul 11, 2014 8:41 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: The future of realtime Linux in doubt by PaulMcKenney
Parent article: The future of realtime Linux in doubt

> So if you need a real-world system that meets latency specifications of some sort, you will need a somewhat more robust definition of "real time".

Okay. Let's change the subject of the definition. Make it the definition of "a real-time software system".

At which point your hammer is simply "defined out of existence". :-)

"real time" exists only in maths, anyways, so defining hardware out of the equation isn't really a big thing. The software is real-time when run on appropriate hardware. Damaging the hardware promptly takes it out of spec and invalidates the maths...

Cheers,
Wol

The future of realtime Linux in doubt

Posted Jul 11, 2014 12:31 UTC (Fri) by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624) [Link]

Indeed, adding those qualifiers is a good first step towards a good real-world-ready definition of "real time".

Although I agree that math can be used approximate some important behaviors of the real world, it is quite easy to take things too far. In particular, any attempt to define a real-world hammer out of existence is unlikely to end well. ;-)