Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
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]
In-Reply-To: <20221122144839.GI4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
References: <CA+G9fYvCWwndXdsvuW7iJ25wgfN6_iMY-OC_z6ufSwiJkzFFMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87o7szoyij.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <20221122144839.GI4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:33:39 +0106
Message-ID: <87leo3ovpw.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

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?

John