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. Too bad I'm not going on any trips soon. This is a project I would work on on the plane. -- Steve -- 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/
