[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090214153124.73132bf9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:31:24 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, orenl@...columbia.edu,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based checkpoint/restart
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:08:02 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Similar to the way in which perfectly correct and normal kernel
> > sometimes has to be changed because it unexpectedly upsets the -rt
> > patch.
>
> Actually, regarding -rt, we try to keep that in two buckets:
>
> 1) Normal kernel code works but is unclean or structured less
> than ideal. In this case we restructure the mainline code,
> but that change stands on its own four legs, without any
> -rt considerations.
>
> 2) Normal kernel code that is clean - i.e. a change that only
> matters to -rt. In this case we dont touch the mainline code,
> nor do we bother mainline.
>
> Do you know any specific example that falls outside of those categories?
>
It happens fairly regularly. Problems with irqs-off regions, problems
with preempt_disable() regions (came up just yesterday with a patch from
Jeremy).
Plus some convert-to-sleeping-lock conversions over the years which
weren't obviously needed in mainline. Or which at least had -rt
motivations. But that's different.
--
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