Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:14:31 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbecker@suse.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: allow to configure PREEMPT_NONE,
 PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY on kernel command line
Message-ID: <20201009101431.GJ2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20201007120401.11200-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20201009091218.GF4967@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20201009094245.GG2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20201009101044.GH4967@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201009101044.GH4967@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 09-10-20 11:42:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:12:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Is there any additional feedback? Should I split up the patch and repost
> > > for inclusion?
> > 
> > Maybe remove PREEMPT_NONE after that?  Since that's then equivalent to
> > building with VOLUNTARY and booting with preempt=none.
> 
> So do you mean that I should post an additional patch which does this on
> top? With a justification that there is one option less to chose from?

Exactly!