On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:48:09PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 15:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
The agreement to kill off ia64 wasn't an invitation to kill off other stuff
that people are still working on! Can we please not do this?
If you're working on one of them, then surely it's a simple matter of
working on adding CONFIG_PREEMPT support :-)
As Geert poined out, I'm not seeing anything particular problematic with the
architectures lacking CONFIG_PREEMPT at the moment. This seems to be more
something about organizing KConfig files.
The plan in the parent thread is to remove PREEMPT_NONE and
PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY and only keep PREEMPT_FULL.
I find it a bit unfair that maintainers of architectures that have huge companies
behind them use their manpower to urge less popular architectures for removal just
because they don't have 150 people working on the port so they can keep up with
design changes quickly.
PREEMPT isn't something new. Also, I don't think the arch part for
actually supporting it is particularly hard, mostly it is sticking the
preempt_schedule_irq() call in return from interrupt code path.
If you convert the arch to generic-entry (a much larger undertaking)
then you get this for free.
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um