make concurrency kit a module

[Adrian Chadd]

hi,

this is a quick change that makes concurrency_kit a module. Right now
the only thing using it is linuxkpi so it's all dead code on
non-linuxkpi platforms.



-adrian

[Adrian Chadd]

https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778


-a

Post by Adrian Chadd
hi,
this is a quick change that makes concurrency_kit a module. Right now
the only thing using it is linuxkpi so it's all dead code on
non-linuxkpi platforms.
-adrian

[Baptiste Daroussin]

Post by Adrian Chadd
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778

Except there are plans to use it elsewhere. Many areas may be improved using it.

Having it as a module would mean some devs might refrain from using it because
there is no waranty for it to be there

Areas like VFS and network stack could have a good benefice from using it.

Out of curiousity what size is saved?

Bapt

[Warner Losh]

Post by Baptiste Daroussin

Post by Adrian Chadd
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778

Except there are plans to use it elsewhere. Many areas may be improved using it.
Having it as a module would mean some devs might refrain from using it because
there is no waranty for it to be there
Areas like VFS and network stack could have a good benefice from using it.
Out of curiousity what size is saved?

I'd planned on using it newbus to solve the lifetime issues we have
with device_t's....

Warner

[Adrian Chadd]

Post by Warner Losh

Post by Baptiste Daroussin

Post by Adrian Chadd
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778

Except there are plans to use it elsewhere. Many areas may be improved using it.
Having it as a module would mean some devs might refrain from using it because
there is no waranty for it to be there
Areas like VFS and network stack could have a good benefice from using it.
Out of curiousity what size is saved?

I'd planned on using it newbus to solve the lifetime issues we have
with device_t's....

I'm happy with things using it in base outside of the linuxkpi.

I'm just trying to push back on the "death by a thousand cuts" that
the IOT platforms face for size constraints. There's plenty of stuff
in the base kernel that storage challenged platforms don't need but
they're not introduced or kept as modules.

It's 2017 and people /are still/ making embedded boards with 8MB of NOR flash.



-adrian

[Hans Petter Selasky]

Post by Adrian Chadd

Post by Warner Losh

Post by Baptiste Daroussin

Post by Adrian Chadd
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778

Except there are plans to use it elsewhere. Many areas may be improved using it.
Having it as a module would mean some devs might refrain from using it because
there is no waranty for it to be there
Areas like VFS and network stack could have a good benefice from using it.
Out of curiousity what size is saved?

I'd planned on using it newbus to solve the lifetime issues we have
with device_t's....

I'm happy with things using it in base outside of the linuxkpi.
I'm just trying to push back on the "death by a thousand cuts" that
the IOT platforms face for size constraints. There's plenty of stuff
in the base kernel that storage challenged platforms don't need but
they're not introduced or kept as modules.
It's 2017 and people /are still/ making embedded boards with 8MB of NOR flash.

Hi,

Please make sure that the CK can still be built as part of the kernel,
if you plan to make it a module by default.

--HPS