On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:46:31PM +0000, Gary R Hook wrote: > My reasoning (not arguing): the file has been touched exactly one time > in 4 years, by Thomas. Doesn't appear to be a candidate for constant > modification, so this approach doesn't seem risky to me. I could be wrong.
The problem, like we discussed it with Tom offlist, is that you simply cannot turn off instrumentation for those generic files just because SME has trouble with them, and that last thing can be any vendor-specific feature. Even if the functions there are "trivial" now (doesn't mean new stuff won't be added there in the future and we forget about the disabled instrumentation here.) We simply cannot constrain generic compilation units like that. So the functions there either need to be copied or ifdeffed. At the time SME was going in, the intention was to reuse code so that there is less duplication. But if there's trouble doing that sharing, then we need to "unshare" it again. Or come up with something else slick and clean. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.