From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Corey Minyard Subject: Couple of questions about details of the RT patch Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:17:11 -0600 Message-ID: <52F3D1A7.8020809@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-rt-users Return-path: Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.219.52]:39257 "EHLO mail-oa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752681AbaBFSRN (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:17:13 -0500 Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id i4so2791014oah.39 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:17:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from t430.minyard.home (pool-173-57-152-84.dllstx.fios.verizon.net. [173.57.152.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oo13sm10119258oeb.0.2014.02.06.10.17.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:17:11 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I was looking over the RT patch and I had a couple of questions: Is there a reason that the PREEMPT_LAZY code is not ifdef-ed out when PREEMPT_LAZY is disabled. I can't see a reason to leave it in, it's just dead code at that point. I'd be happy to do a patch to fix this. Why does preempt_disable_rt() become a barrier when PREEMPT_RT is disabled? Why isn't it just nothing? Thanks, -corey