[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091109115303.GB5206@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:53:05 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>,
Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@...glemail.com>,
David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Adam Nemet <anemet@...iumnetworks.com>,
Patrik Kluba <kpajko79@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 08/11] tracing: not trace mips_timecounter_init()
in MIPS
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 12:31:12PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote:
> I think if we use something like __mips_notrace here, we may get lots of
> __ARCH_notraces here too, 'Cause some other platforms(at least, as I
> know, Microblaze will do it too) may also need to add one here, it will
> become:
>
> __mips_notrace __ARCH1_notrace __ARCH2_notrace .... foo() {...}
>
> A little ugly ;)
Yeah :)
I thought Mips would be the only one to do that.
> and If a new platform need it's __ARCH_notrace, they need to touch the
> common part of ftrace, more side-effects!
>
> but with __arch_notrace, the archs only need to touch it's own part,
> Although there is a side-effect as you mentioned above ;)
>
> So, what should we do?
>
> Regards,
> Wu Zhangjin
>
Why not __time ?
As it's normal that such few functions that are used to read the timecounter
have fair chances to be __no_trace on archs like MIPS. Interested
archs would just need to override a default stub __time.
--
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