On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 10:24 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/23/2013 08:27 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 08:06 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > >> We don't even need the jump_label infrastructure -- we have > >> static_cpu_has*() which actually predates jump_label although it uses > >> the same underlying ideas. > > > > Ah right. I wonder if it would be worth consolidating a lot of these > > "modifying of code" infrastructures. Which reminds me, I need to update > > text_poke() to do things similar to what ftrace does, and get rid of the > > stop machine code. > > > > Well, static_cpu_has*() just uses the alternatives infrastructure. And as it's a boot time change only, it's not quite in the category of jump_labels and function tracing. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
