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;
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:55:26 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc:     paulmck@kernel.org, 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]
Message-ID: <Y3zw7nv5KJ32P4FG@alley>
References: <CA+G9fYvCWwndXdsvuW7iJ25wgfN6_iMY-OC_z6ufSwiJkzFFMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87o7szoyij.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <20221122144839.GI4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <87leo3ovpw.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87leo3ovpw.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

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