Given that there have been no TREE_RCU bugs reported for some months,
it is time to make TREE_RCU be the default RCU implementation. The rest
of this series updates defconfig files that: (1) have CONFIG_SMP=y and
(2) explicitly mention CONFIG_CLASSIC_RCU.
Given that I don't have access to most of the relevant hardware, much
of this is untested.
Changes since v1: per-arch defconfig patches dropped.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
---
init/Kconfig | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
index 236a793..ef9d030 100644
--- a/init/Kconfig
+++ b/init/Kconfig
@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ menu "RCU Subsystem"
choice
prompt "RCU Implementation"
- default CLASSIC_RCU
+ default TREE_RCU
config CLASSIC_RCU
bool "Classic RCU"
--
1.5.2.5
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:16:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Given that there have been no TREE_RCU bugs reported for some months,
> it is time to make TREE_RCU be the default RCU implementation. The rest
> of this series updates defconfig files that: (1) have CONFIG_SMP=y and
> (2) explicitly mention CONFIG_CLASSIC_RCU.
>
> Given that I don't have access to most of the relevant hardware, much
> of this is untested.
>
> Changes since v1: per-arch defconfig patches dropped.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
>
Do you intend to do this for .30 or .31? I'll try to test it as
soon as I can on parisc... Somehow I suspect it won't be the worst
of the problems... :)
regards, Kyle
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:18:34PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:16:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Given that there have been no TREE_RCU bugs reported for some months,
> > it is time to make TREE_RCU be the default RCU implementation. The rest
> > of this series updates defconfig files that: (1) have CONFIG_SMP=y and
> > (2) explicitly mention CONFIG_CLASSIC_RCU.
> >
> > Given that I don't have access to most of the relevant hardware, much
> > of this is untested.
> >
> > Changes since v1: per-arch defconfig patches dropped.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
>
> Do you intend to do this for .30 or .31? I'll try to test it as
> soon as I can on parisc... Somehow I suspect it won't be the worst
> of the problems... :)
I was hoping for .30 -- should I now don my asbestos suit? ;-)
Thanx, Paul