On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:32:05 +0100
Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 04:24:48PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
If the conversion isn't hard, why is the first reflex the urge to remove an architecture
instead of offering advise how to get the conversion done?
Because PREEMPT has been around since before 2005 (cc19ca86a023 created
Kconfig.preempt and I don't need to go back further than that to make my
point), and you haven't done the work yet. Clearly it takes the threat
of removal to get some kind of motion.
Or the use case of a preempt kernel on said arch has never been a request.
Just because it was available doesn't necessarily mean it's required.
Please, let's not jump to threats of removal just to get a feature in.
Simply ask first. I didn't see anyone reaching out to the maintainers
asking for this as it will be needed for a new feature that will likely
make maintaining said arch easier.
Everything is still in brainstorming mode.
-- Steve
