Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> What am I missing? > > Note that I've seen and recently re-read the discussion that leads to > https://lore.kernel.org/git/f680b274-fa85-6624-096a-7753a2671c15@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I suspect that this auto-probe is related to solving "the user > thinks JIT is in use but because of failing JIT the user's pattern > is getting horrible performance" somehow. But I do not think a hard > failure is a good approach to help users in such a situation. I guess what I am saying is that the previous one that has been queued on 'seen' may be better. It should cover your original "SELinux and other mechanisms can render JIT unusable because they do not allow dynamic generation of code" use case. Thanks.
