[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87leo3ovpw.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:33:39 +0106
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: next-20221122: tinyconfig: ppc n s390:
kernel/printk/printk.c:95:1: error: type specifier missing, defaults to
'int'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit int
[-Werror,-Wimplicit-int]
On 2022-11-22, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>> @paulmck: Do you have a problem with permanently activating CONFIG_SRCU?
>
> The people wanting it separate back in the day were those wanting very
> tiny kernels. I have not heard from them in a long time, so maybe it
> is now OK to just make SRCU unconditional.
Who decides this? Or maybe I should create a semaphore-based Variant of
console_srcu_read_lock()/console_srcu_read_unlock() for the
"!CONFIG_PRINTK && !CONFIG_SRCU" case?
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists