[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ffb8f7c-085c-f6cc-e308-3f75b24b8e47@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:22:59 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.14-rc4-rt4
On 8/4/21 10:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:05:39 -0600
> Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
>> So what do you propose in the interim? As far as io_uring is concerned,
>> it's not a _huge_ deal to do the IRQ dance, but it does bother me that
>> we're making things slightly worse for the mainline kernel just to make
>> the out-of-tree patches happy.
>
> Note that the purpose of these patches are to be able to bring those
> out-of-tree patches into the kernel such that they are no longer
> out-of-tree.
Sure, I realize that. And I've always been accommodating to making
pieces of code more RT friendly, I just don't like doing it for cases
where we are making mainline worse.
In that regard, I do still consider those patches out-of-tree, which
they are. And while I'm more sympathetic to them compared to other
out-of-tree code as there's a long term plan to get it all in, it's
still out-of-tree. Best solution here is probably to just carry that
particular change in the RT patchset for now.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists