[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812130956350.17344@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:59:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: entry_64 - introduce FTRACE_ frame macro
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Fr?d?ric Weisbecker wrote:
> 2008/12/13 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Looks good and clarify the asm bits.
>
> I wonder if the function_graph_tracer should continue to necessarily
> depend on the function tracer.
> It was more simplier to do so but perhaps that could be avoided with
> small modifications.
It could be, but remember, the dynamic ftrace gives the ability to specify
which function can be chosen.
But on the other hand, I guess it would be fine to have it separate. There
is no reason that it can not be. I would still keep the dynamic part
dependent on function tracer. At least for now.
-- Steve
--
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