On 27.01.23 19:46, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. It clearly does cover my use case but it has a bad impact on the runtime of pathological patterns. But if you think that's not an issue, I'll update the changelog of v1 accordingly and resent it. Thanks, Mathias
