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
