On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> Good observation, but this approach prevents someone from building an
> rcutorture module after the fact for a kernel that was built with
> CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST=n. So I have to say "no" on this one.
>
OK, I did not consider that ca
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 08:07:52PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Seems that my previous mail was borked while copying the patch. Please find
> the fixed patch below:
>
> make rcutorture specific variables in tree.c depend on CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST
> This avoid having to have them when no torture
Seems that my previous mail was borked while copying the patch. Please find the
fixed patch below:
make rcutorture specific variables in tree.c depend on CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST
This avoid having to have them when no torture tests are running.
Also cleanup some macros which are rcutorture specifi
make rcutorture specific variables in tree.c depend on CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST
This avoid having to have them when no torture tests are running.
Also cleanup some macros which are rcutorture specific.
Tested with rcutorture both in-built and as a module
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar
---
include
4 matches
Mail list logo