On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:49:24PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Josh Triplett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > I think it would actually make more sense to do this the other way >> > around, if at all: drop TREE_PREEMPT_RCU in favor of PREEMPT_RCU. The >> > instances shown here don't care about *which* preemptible RCU >> > implementation the kernel uses, they just need to behave differently >> > when preemptible. Let's also not assume that no new RCU implementation >> > will ever arise superceding TREE_PREEMPT_RCU. >> >> That is exactly what I did first and got the following changelog: >> >> 51 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) >> >> compared to >> >> 8 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > Were the bulk of the files defconfig files? These need not be changed, > the architecture maintainers handle them. >
There are only two defconfig files in there. I removed them now. Most of them are rcutorture config files. I guess that should be fine. I am sending the patch now. -- Pranith -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
