On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:04:15PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:38:43 -0500 > "Suresh E. Warrier" <warr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > But for now, what can be done is to have > > > a flag that is set that will implement this or not. Using > > > static_branch() to implement it such that when its off it has no effect. > > > > > > > Are you recommending that for now I use a static_branch() instead > > of a CONFIG option to fix this? I could do that but the resulting > > code will either be messier to read (with several if condition checks) > > or will require some duplication of code. My assumption is that the > > new CONFIG option when disabled should have negligible impact since > > the compiler inlines the functions. > > It can be done cleanly if you encapsulate it properly.
Sure, but what is the advantage to using a static branch? When would you ever want a single kernel image that could run either way depending on what machine it was running on? > Too bad I'm not going on any trips soon. This is a project I would work > on on the plane. :) Paul. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
