[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080108232841.GD2117@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:28:41 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, ananth@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...e.hu, mhiramat@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
hskinnemoen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kprobes: Add kprobes smoke tests that run on boot
> I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
> module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be replaced with some other
> gcc-inline-defeating mechanism, or we need to export get_probe(). I
It's still unclear where noinline does not work (do you have details on that?
It sounds a little dubious) but there are lots of different other ways to prevent gcc
from inlining anything.
e.g. you can use stdarg or computed goto or a variable length local array
> much prefer the former, since get_kprobe() is a kprobes-internal
> function.
>
> Anybody know an architecture-independent way (other than noinline, which
> doesn't always work) of making gcc decide not to inline a function?
Details?
> E.g., does taking (and using) the function's address do it?
No, that just creates another out of line copy.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists