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;
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.14-rc4-rt4
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210804104340.fhdjwn3hruymu3ml@linutronix.de>
 <20210804104803.4nwxi74sa2vwiujd@linutronix.de>
 <20210804110057.chsvt7l5xpw7bo5r@linutronix.de>
 <20210804131731.GG8057@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <4f549344-1040-c677-6a6a-53e243c5f364@kernel.dk>
 <feebf183-2e33-36b5-4538-62a40b2a58b6@kernel.dk>
 <20210804153308.oasahcxjmcw7vivo@linutronix.de>
 <f2d0a028-fe85-28ff-9cea-8ab1d26a15d0@kernel.dk>
 <20210804154743.niogqvnladdkfgi2@linutronix.de>
 <7c946918-ae0d-6195-6a78-b019f9bc1fd3@kernel.dk>
 <20210804155747.cwayhjsdjc4zaubd@linutronix.de>
 <c3fa07d1-a3c4-6775-f419-4875eb41bc88@kernel.dk>
 <20210804122029.6c5c837a@oasis.local.home>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <4ffb8f7c-085c-f6cc-e308-3f75b24b8e47@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:22:59 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210804122029.6c5c837a@oasis.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 8/4/21 10:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:05:39 -0600
> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> 
>> So what do you propose in the interim? As far as io_uring is concerned,
>> it's not a _huge_ deal to do the IRQ dance, but it does bother me that
>> we're making things slightly worse for the mainline kernel just to make
>> the out-of-tree patches happy.
> 
> Note that the purpose of these patches are to be able to bring those
> out-of-tree patches into the kernel such that they are no longer
> out-of-tree.

Sure, I realize that. And I've always been accommodating to making
pieces of code more RT friendly, I just don't like doing it for cases
where we are making mainline worse.

In that regard, I do still consider those patches out-of-tree, which
they are. And while I'm more sympathetic to them compared to other
out-of-tree code as there's a long term plan to get it all in, it's
still out-of-tree. Best solution here is probably to just carry that
particular change in the RT patchset for now.

-- 
Jens Axboe