[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230919113108.1c988906@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:31:08 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, mgorman@...e.de,
jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:32:05 +0100
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 04:24:48PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > If the conversion isn't hard, why is the first reflex the urge to remove an architecture
> > instead of offering advise how to get the conversion done?
>
> Because PREEMPT has been around since before 2005 (cc19ca86a023 created
> Kconfig.preempt and I don't need to go back further than that to make my
> point), and you haven't done the work yet. Clearly it takes the threat
> of removal to get some kind of motion.
Or the use case of a preempt kernel on said arch has never been a request.
Just because it was available doesn't necessarily mean it's required.
Please, let's not jump to threats of removal just to get a feature in.
Simply ask first. I didn't see anyone reaching out to the maintainers
asking for this as it will be needed for a new feature that will likely
make maintaining said arch easier.
Everything is still in brainstorming mode.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists