[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B913A83.4040805@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:08:19 -0500
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Archs <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Introduce new perf_save_regs() for hot regs
snapshot
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:08:07AM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> +void perf_arch_save_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long ip, int skip)
>>
>> Hmm, why would you call it 'save_regs' ?
>> It seems that this function is just for fixing registers
>> instead of saving it into somewhere...
>>
>> Thank you,
>
>
> Hmm, save_regs() describes what it does: you pass
> a pt_regs and it saves registers inside. But it
> has also a kind of fixup thing as it also rewinds.
Ah, I see. so this saves current register values
into pt_regs. :)
>
> I'm not sure using a fixup thing for the naming
> is correct as we are not starting with initial
> regs passed to the function (just a raw buffer).
>
> What about perf_save_caller_regs() ?
>
Hmm, I think, it might be better perf_get_caller_regs()
or something like that (fetch ?).
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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