Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:24:05 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls
Message-ID: <20181108212405.4xovfqjqz7x4lgms@treble>
References: <cover.1541711457.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1541711457.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:15:50PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> - Does this feature have much value without retpolines?  If not, should
>   we make it depend on retpolines somehow?

I forgot Andy mentioned that we might be able to use this to clean up
paravirt patching, in which case it would have a lot of value,
retpolines or not...

-- 
Josh