lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: next-20221122: tinyconfig: ppc n s390: kernel/printk/printk.c:95:1: error: type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit int [-Werror,-Wimplicit-int]
On Tue 2022-11-22 16:33:39, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2022-11-22, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> @paulmck: Do you have a problem with permanently activating CONFIG_SRCU?
> >
> > The people wanting it separate back in the day were those wanting very
> > tiny kernels. I have not heard from them in a long time, so maybe it
> > is now OK to just make SRCU unconditional.
>
> Who decides this? Or maybe I should create a semaphore-based Variant of
> console_srcu_read_lock()/console_srcu_read_unlock() for the
> "!CONFIG_PRINTK && !CONFIG_SRCU" case?

I would prefer to avoid it. It would require keeping this in mind.
Semaphore behaves very differently than srcu_read_lock (deadlocks,
nesting).

I am not sure how much the tiny SRCU would increase the size of
the kernel. I doubt that it would be more that what printk()
added by the various per-CPU and per-console buffers.

Well, another question is why we actually need to register the consoles
at all for !CONFIG_PRINTK. Only reasons come to my mind:

+ /dev/console
+ preventing double registration/unregistration (initialization)

I could imagine to handle these two use-cases a special way
on tiny systems. But I would do it only when anyone complains.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-22 16:56    [W:0.075 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site