Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:32:05 +0100
Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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