lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:31:12 +0800 From: Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com> To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...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 Hi, On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 22:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: [...] > > > > > > But I would rather see a __mips_notrace on these two core functions. > > > > What about this: __arch_notrace? If the arch need this, define it, > > otherwise, ignore it! if only graph tracer need it, define it in "#ifdef > > CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER ... #endif". > > > > The problem is that archs may want to disable tracing on different > places. > For example mips wants to disable tracing in timecounter_read_delta, > but another arch may want to disable tracing somewhere else. > > We'll then have several unrelated __arch_notrace. One that is relevant > for mips, another that is relevant for arch_foo, but all of them will > apply for all arch that have defined a __arch_notrace. > > It's true that __mips_notrace is not very elegant as it looks like > a specific arch annotation intruder. > > > But at least that gives us a per arch filter granularity. > > If only static ftrace could disappear, we could keep only dynamic > ftrace and we would then be able to filter dynamically. > But I'm not sure it's a good idea for archs integration. > 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 ;) 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 -- 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