On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 04:33:58PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 03:59:59PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
So as not to lead anyone up the garden path, let me correct myself:
> Hmm, so this appears to be us attempting to patch in alternatives where
> none actually exists - seemingly F & D.
And of course that's not true, riscv_has_extension_likely() now uses
alternatives as of:
bdda5d554e43 ("riscv: introduce riscv_has_extension_[un]likely()")
From a quick look, it just happens that the only users are F & D.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
