[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60BA3EDE80604C4BAEE4AAF7FF714D185813F8C3@orsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:42:33 -0700
From: "Stone, Joshua I" <joshua.i.stone@...el.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"systemtap@...rceware.org" <systemtap@...rceware.org>
CC: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] systemtap: fix up on_each_cpu() for kernels 2.6.26+
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 11:51 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
>> In kernel 2.6.26, this patch
>>
>> commit 15c8b6c1aaaf1c4edd67e2f02e4d8e1bd1a51c0d
>> Author: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
>> Date: Fri May 9 09:39:44 2008 +0200
>>
>> on_each_cpu(): kill unused 'retry' parameter
>>
>> means that runtime/time.c is now using the wrong calling conventions.
>> Fix this up and surround it by kernel versioning #ifdefs.
>
> By the way, this is a classic illustration of the fragility problem
> in holding the systemtap runtime outside of the kernel. If it had
> been in-kernel, all this would be fixed up and running and no-one
> would even have noticed.
Believe it or not, we really do understand this sentiment.
The whole runtime/time.c in particular is a fairly ugly way for us to
get a call-anywhere gettimeofday. I would love to see an in-kernel
replacement for this, but I don't have the expertise to know how to
approach it myself.
Josh
--
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