[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150327221430.GA31309@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 09:14:30 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "Suresh E. Warrier" <warrier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: More precise time stamps for nested writes
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" <warrier@...ux.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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists