Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: More precise time stamps for nested writes

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:38:43 -0500
"Suresh E. Warrier" <warrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/