[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081225192332.GI6912@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:23:32 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
kernel@...tstofly.org, hskinnemoen@...el.com, cooloney@...nel.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, zippel@...ux-m68k.org,
jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mporter@...nel.crashing.org,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, paulus@...ba.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] Switch arm defconfig files from
CONFIG_CLASSIC_RCU to CONFIG_TREE_RCU.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:33:01AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 09:36:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > below is the fix for another small buglet that hits architectures that do
> > not include kernel/Kconfig.preempt.
>
> What is needed to let all architectures include Kconfig.preempt?
> We should not advertise preemption if not supported,
> but we could do this by a simple Kconfig symbol:
>
> config HAVE_PREEMPT
> bool
>
> And let all architectures that supports preemption do:
>
> config "ARCH"
> select HAVE_PREEMPT
>
> But maybe there is a simpler solution
The idea being to make things like PREEMPT then depend on HAVE_PREEMPT?
Seems reasonable to me, but I cannot claim to understand the
relationship of Kconfig and the various arches very well.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists