Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:55:26 +0100 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |