[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63386a3d0906141051v50cc441fj27f0132fa5c77b80@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:51:04 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com>
To: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace,arm: add notrace to ARM sched_clock routines -
resend
2009/6/13 Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>:
> Add notrace attribute to sched_clock, to avoid
> recursion with ftrace function tracing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-mmp/time.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm/mach-pxa/time.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm/mach-realview/core.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm/mach-sa1100/generic.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm/mach-versatile/core.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm/plat-omap/common.c | 4 ++--
> 6 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
And now that Paul Mundt is making it possible to use the default
sched_clock() with the generic clocksource and the OMAP hack
will likely go away, should the default implementation in
kernel/sched_clock.c also be tagged as
unsigned long long notrace __attribute__((weak)) sched_clock(void)
or something?
Should it be tagged notrace even if it's the old jiffybased one even?
Linus Walleij
--
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