[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140708102416.50d996e2@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:24:16 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] ftrace: Add dynamically allocated trampolines
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:22:27 +0200 (CEST)
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > Well, I guess the answer to that is what do you consider the trampoline?
> > I'm currently considering it to be the assembly code that the
> > mcount/fentry call jumps to. We only have two trampolines (three if you
> > count the function graph code that will be called directly come 3.17).
> > Those two are the normal ftrace_caller and the ftrace_regs_caller.
>
> BTW, on those archs that support regs saving already, is there really a
> reson not to kill ftrace_caller and keep just ftrace_regs_caller?
>
Consistency. Perhaps the two can be the same trampoline, which would be
trivial to implement, but I wouldn't kill one which would make the
generic code more complex.
-- Steve
--
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