On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 00:18 +0100, John Kacur wrote: > Imagine you have a uni-processor system and want to do real-time. > According to the descriptions in init/Kconfig, you would want to > select TINY_PREEMPT_RCU. The description is > > This option selects the RCU implementation that is designed > for real-time UP systems. This option greatly reduces the > memory footprint of RCU. > > Without this patch, you cannot choose this option because of the && > !PREEMPT_RT_FULL > So, that is a bug, and makes this patch appropriate for stable. 3.0-rt never supported rcutiny, which means adding it now is not a bug fix but a new feature. Sure, it may have been a mistake that Thomas kept rcutiny out for 3.0-rt, but because 3.0-rt never supported it, and 3.0-rt can fully support rcutree with !SMP, there is no bug to be fixed here. You're adding a new feature to stable, not fixing someones problem. > > I suppose if you want to be really conservative, you can say we only > need that third hunk. > However, this upstream patch, makes these options in v3.0-rt match the > options in v3.2-rc2-rt3. > > Furthermore, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me to support > configurations in a stable branch that are not supported upstream. No, upstream changed the game, in which the configuration can't be supported. But the stable release can fully support this configuration. there's no reason to this change just because the latest tree can't support it. It's like we have to deprecate everything in stable that has been deprecated in upstream. Stable is not a mirror of upstream, it's a snapshot in time. Only if we discover something that crashes, or causes huge latencies do we want to update stable. Not when we realized that a feature wasn't supported by -rt. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
