On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 08:36:43AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/5/23 8:33 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:05:47AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 05:43:07PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On 1/4/23 5:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>> Now that the SRCU Kconfig option is unconditionally selected, there is
> >>>> no longer any point in selecting it. Therefore, remove the "select SRCU"
> >>>> Kconfig statements.
> >>>
> >>> I'm assuming something earlier made this true (only CC'ed on this patch,
> >>> not the cover letter or interesting btis...), then:
> >>
> >> I was wondering the same. But it is already unconditionally enabled
> >> since commit 0cd7e350abc4 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory").
> >
> > Ah, apologies for the terseness!
> >
> > I took the coward's way out by making CONFIG_SRCU unconditional during
> > the last merge window and removing all references during this merge
> > window. ;-)
>
> Are you intending for maintainers to pick up these patches, or are you
> collecting acks for sending the series separately? That part is also
> not clear :-)
Fair point!
Maintainer's choice. By default, I collect acks and send it. But if
(for example) this change is in a high-traffic area, the maintainer
might want to take it, in which case I drop it from my tree.
Either way works for me, as long as you let me know. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
