> > I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular
> > reason you can't do that?
>
> We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't
> think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter.
I still think it would be better to patch always.
> Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it.
> We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine
> so I didn't want to touch it.
You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed
in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
