On 19/09/2023 14:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:37:24PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 14:00 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Though it just occured to me that there are dragons lurking:
arch/alpha/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT
arch/hexagon/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT
arch/m68k/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT if !COLDFIRE
arch/um/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT
Sounds like three-and-a-half architectures which could be queued up for
removal right behind ia64 ...
The agreement to kill off ia64 wasn't an invitation to kill off other stuff
that people are still working on! Can we please not do this?
If you're working on one of them, then surely it's a simple matter of
working on adding CONFIG_PREEMPT support :-)
In the case of UML adding preempt will be quite difficult. I looked at this a few years back.
At the same time it is used for kernel test and other stuff. It is not exactly abandonware on a CPU found in archaeological artifacts of past civilizations like ia64.
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
--
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/
