Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:48:41 -0700 | | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip] Convert CONFIG_SMP=y powerpc defconfigs to TREE_RCU. |
| |
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:46:23PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 12:17:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:21:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Paul E. McKenney > > > > > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > > > Why would one want to do this? The commit log doesn't explain the > > > > > switch and why it's great. Mostly because the commit log doesn't > > > > > exist. (I'll stop channeling Andrew now) > > > > > > > > Indeed, I am sure that I will get the hang the relevant git > > > > commands at some point, but clearly am not yet there. > > > > > > > > The thing that is great about this patch is that it is a step on > > > > the way to retiring Classic RCU entirely. > > > > > > I'd suggest you dont do these dozens of defconfig updates at all - > > > arch maintainers can do this themselves, once the core kernel > > > default has been flipped. > > > > I am of course personally quite happy with this approach in the > > short term, as I would only need to worry about one patch. > > > > My one concern would be that we cannot retire Classic RCU until > > all the arch maintainers remove CONFIG_CLASSIC_RCU=y from their > > defconfig files. However, given that the attached script suffices, > > I am not too worried about that. > > ah, that's not a real concern. Most defconfigs are stale all the > time, and arch maintainers typically refresh them at around rc7. > (if at all) Kconfig will warn about (and ignore) stale entries. > > So no, there's no requirement to touch defconfigs - to the contrary: > it has way too wide of a cross section with other trees to be really > practical to carry in the RCU tree.
Sounds good to me!!! So, is http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/3/561 sufficient, or should I repost?
Thanx, Paul
|  |