On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:18:43AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:10:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 02:59:48PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > [ . . . ] > > > > > > No. "Available in mainline" is the name of the game for all I do. If > > > > it > > > > can't be made acceptable for mainline then it basically has no chance > > > > of > > > > gaining traction and becoming generally useful. My approach is > > > > therefore > > > > to always find solutions that can be maintained upstream and > > > > contributed > > > > to with minimal fuss by anyone. > > > > > > OK, then wish me luck. ;-) > > > > And still quite a bit of back and forth. How are things with tty? > > > > One question that came up -- what sort of SoCs are you targeting? > > A number of people are insisting that smartphone SoCs with 256M DRAM > > are the minimal systems of the future. This seems unlikely to me, > > given the potential for extremely cheap SoCs with EDRAM or some such, > > but figured I should ask what you are targeting. > > I'm targetting 256 *kilobytes* of RAM. Most likely SRAM. That's not for > smart phones but really cheap IoT devices. That's the next area for > (trimmed down) Linux to conquer. Example targets are STM32 chips. > > Please see the following for the rationale and how to get there: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/721074/ > > http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=alpine.LFD.2.20.1703241215540.2304%40knanqh.ubzr
Ah, thank you for the reminder. I did read that article, but somehow got a few megabytes stuck in my head instead of the correct quarter meg. Anyway, don't look now, but Tiny {S,}RCU just might live on, for a bit longer, anyway. Thanx, Paul