Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:04:15 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: More precise time stamps for nested writes |
| |
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:38:43 -0500 "Suresh E. Warrier" <warrier@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
| |