Re: PREEMPT_RT vs bcache

[Ben Hutchings]

On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 13:53 -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:28:18PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > As Kent said back in 2011 (commit 84759c6d18c5), bcache needs
> > {down,up}_read_non_owner().  But these are not implemented by the -rt
> > patchset when PREEMPT_RT_FULL is enabled.  Can they be added, or is
> > there a fundamental conflict here?
> 
> You should be able to cherry pick
> 84759c6d18c5144432781ddca037d929ee9db8a5 (Revert "rw_semaphore: remove
> up/down_read_non_owner") - that went in when bcache was merged.

That's the commit I was referring to.  But the -rt patchset has a
separate implementation of semaphores for PREEMPT_RT_FULL.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part