[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140207104107.GC23668@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:41:07 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Cc: linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.12.9-rt13
* Nicholas Mc Guire | 2014-02-05 10:26:57 [+0100]:
>Sorry - this one causes a build failure with PREEMPT_RT_BASE=y and
>PREEMPT_RT_FULL not set.
At some point we are going to drop PREEMPT_RT_BASE because it was only
meant for debugging in the beginning. However I don't know when this
will be.
>The patch below fixes this build failure for 3.12.9-rt13.
>
>Not sure what the clean way of resolving this is - this patch proposes to
>move the spin_*_local into linux/locallock.h and map to spin_*lock for
>the "CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL not set" case.
>
>This was build tested with Preempt none,voluntary,low-lat,base,full and
>otherweise got only limited testing.
>
>I'm also not sure if putting the rt specific locks into locallock.h in
>this way is the proper way to deal with this #include dependency.
I think I keep it that way. However I split into two patches and add the
spin_lock_local => rt_spin_lock mapping in the rt-add-rt-locks.patch
where the locks are introduced.
Sebastian
--
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