On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> After playing with the patches again, I now understand why I did that.
> It wasn't just for optimization.
[explanation snipped]
> Anyway, if you feel that update_jump_label is too complex, I can go the
> "update at early boot" route and see how that goes.
Ugh. I'd love to see short jumps, but I do dislike binary rewriting,
and doing it at early boot seems really quite scary too.
So I wonder if this is a "ok, let's not bother, it's not worth the
pain" issue. 128 bytes of offset is very small, so there probably
aren't all that many cases that would use it.
Linus
