From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.10.6-rt3 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:34:48 -0700 Message-ID: <5212B9A8.9050900@ccrma.stanford.edu> References: <20130812163413.GI23040@linutronix.de> <520D212F.7030400@localhost> <20130815152210.5ed93696@gandalf.local.home> <520DCE5F.1040402@linutronix.de> <521254A0.6050603@localhost> <20130819202903.692097ea@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Kent Overstreet , linux-rt-users , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , John Kacur To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130819202903.692097ea@gandalf.local.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org On 08/19/2013 05:29 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:23:44 -0700 > Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > >>> The problem is that bcache is using new semaphore functions which it >>> just introduced which rt does not know about. The comment above their >>> definition says that it is wrong to use them and completion is the >>> right way to do it. >>> So my question is, why don't we use completion but this nasty hack? > > I think I'm going to send them an email about that. > >> >> In the meanwhile, any hope of a patch to be able to compile and test >> with my current configuration? > > Can you boot without enabling CONFIG_BCACHE? I'm pretty sure I'll be able to do that. No real need in my personal case AFAICT. I'll try that next - it is just that I try very hard to keep the configuration of my rt kernels as close as possible to the defaults that Fedora uses (they get distributed as part of Planet CCRMA and there is no telling what usage cases they will hit - it would be confusing to have something that works on Fedora kernels and does not on equivalent RT patched kernels). Thanks for the heads up!, -- Fernando