[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090619033358.GI7903@nowhere>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:33:59 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
jiayingz@...gle.com, bligh@...gle.com, roland@...hat.com,
fche@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] add syscall tracepoints
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:14:20AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 05:24:59PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> >> update FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX to the current number of syscalls
> >>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h | 4 ++--
> >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> >> index bd2c651..d16d195 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> >> @@ -30,9 +30,9 @@
> >>
> >> /* FIXME: I don't want to stay hardcoded */
> >
> >
> > BTW, is there a way to know this size dynamically?
> > Or is there already a hardcoded number of syscalls somewhere
> > in x86?
> >
>
> Does this patchset head for .31 or .32? If for .32, then this patch should
> go into .31 I think.
Hmm, I was thinking about .32 but if Ingo has the time to test it and
if he agrees with it, why not.
--
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