[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5212B9A8.9050900@ccrma.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:34:48 -0700
From: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.10.6-rt3
On 08/19/2013 05:29 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:23:44 -0700
> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>>> The problem is that bcache is using new semaphore functions which it
>>> just introduced which rt does not know about. The comment above their
>>> definition says that it is wrong to use them and completion is the
>>> right way to do it.
>>> So my question is, why don't we use completion but this nasty hack?
>
> I think I'm going to send them an email about that.
>
>>
>> In the meanwhile, any hope of a patch to be able to compile and test
>> with my current configuration?
>
> Can you boot without enabling CONFIG_BCACHE?
I'm pretty sure I'll be able to do that. No real need in my personal
case AFAICT.
I'll try that next - it is just that I try very hard to keep the
configuration of my rt kernels as close as possible to the defaults that
Fedora uses (they get distributed as part of Planet CCRMA and there is
no telling what usage cases they will hit - it would be confusing to
have something that works on Fedora kernels and does not on equivalent
RT patched kernels).
Thanks for the heads up!,
-- Fernando
--
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