Hello, Daniel, Sebastian. > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:30:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2019-10-04 18:20:41 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > If we have migrate_disable/enable, then, i think preempt_enable/disable > > > > should be replaced by it and not the way how it has been proposed > > > > in the patch. > > > > > > I don't think this patch is appropriate for upstream. > > > > Yes, I agree. The discussion made this clear, this is only for -rt > > trees. Initially I though this should be in mainline too. > > Sorry, this was _before_ Uladzislau pointed out that you *just* moved > the lock that was there from the beginning. I missed that while looking > over the patch. Based on that I don't think that this patch is not > appropriate for upstream. > Yes that is a bit messy :) Then i do not see what that patch fixes in mainline? Instead it will just add an extra blocking, i did not want that therefore used preempt_enable/disable. But, when i saw this patch i got it as a preparation of PREEMPT_RT merging work. -- Vlad Rezki
