[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060920180808.GI18646@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:08:08 -0400
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>, prasanna@...ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
Hi -
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:21:52PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> [...] IOW, we should be able to do what Martin suggests fairly
> easily (if we agree on a 5-byte "null" jump at the entry of
> functions of interest). Right? [...]
My interpretation of Martin's Monday proposal is that, if implemented,
we wouldn't need any of this nop/int3 stuff. If function being
instrumented were recompiled on-the-fly, then it could sport plain &
direct C-level calls to the instrumentation handlers.
- FChE
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists