On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 09:19:09PM -0000 Justin M. Forbes (via Email Bridge) wrote: > From: Justin M. Forbes on gitlab.com > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1500#note_735053347 > > > This commit, or something like it, seems to have gone in but without > > much of a commit message. Was that on purpsoe? > > > Yes, there are files in pending-common that go in without a merge request. > Typically those are set to default values because they are new config options, > but in this case it had to be set by hand because these are not new config > items, but are currently set in a way that is unbuildable. Everything in > pending-common is set without review, and should have a corresponding MR to > move the items from pending-common and into the correct place. If we did not > do this with pending common, this tree would never build until every single > config MR was reviewed and merged. It is a method to keep the tree usable, > but make sure that nothing makes it into final RHEL configs until reviewed. > > > Also, I noticed that the dynamic preemption is only enabled for x86_64 due > > to none of the other archs enabling HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC. There are arm > > patches posted but not yet merged to enable this there. > > This is true, but as other arches add HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC, this commit > message will still be what is seen when people check the values for the > configs. In the case of aarch64, I expect that will be soon. In the case of > power, it may or may not happen, but the commit message still explains the > situation, as it is PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, it just can't be overridden unless > patches are merged to enable dynamic. S390 is still not dynamic and ships > with PREEMPT_NONE. In all of these cases, it matches what is currently in RHEL > 9/RHEL 8, and stable Fedora with the addition of dynamic override allowed > where the arch supports it. Yes, I get that part. I was talking about os-build:50d16ce3099, which has a one line commit message and says nothing about keeping VOLUNTARY etc. The commit message on what you posted here looked more like what I was expecting. But maybe I'm just confused... Cheers, Phil > _______________________________________________ > kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
