[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJhHMCBeqLN4dTS5uswUjwfcajT2LQ63NgbJm-FXRAB-XScsdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:44:08 -0400
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove redundant CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU option
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:49:24PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think it would actually make more sense to do this the other way
>> > around, if at all: drop TREE_PREEMPT_RCU in favor of PREEMPT_RCU. The
>> > instances shown here don't care about *which* preemptible RCU
>> > implementation the kernel uses, they just need to behave differently
>> > when preemptible. Let's also not assume that no new RCU implementation
>> > will ever arise superceding TREE_PREEMPT_RCU.
>>
>> That is exactly what I did first and got the following changelog:
>>
>> 51 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)
>>
>> compared to
>>
>> 8 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> Were the bulk of the files defconfig files? These need not be changed,
> the architecture maintainers handle them.
>
There are only two defconfig files in there. I removed them now. Most
of them are rcutorture config files. I guess that should be fine. I am
sending the patch now.
--
Pranith
--
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