[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrW_bnmqBRp3qWoaWUu=m7Bi19VcH9kMBifyL06JuGGVzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:45:05 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
Marcin Nowakowski <marcin.nowakowski@...tec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing/syscalls: allow multiple syscall numbers per syscall
On Aug 30, 2016 1:58 PM, "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:53:53 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Egads! OK, I see why this is a mess.
>
> :-)
>
> >
> > I guess we should be creating the metadata from the syscall tables
> > instead of from the syscall definitions, but I guess that's currently
> > a nasty per-arch mess.
>
> Yep.
>
I wonder: could more of it be dynamically allocated? I.e. statically
generate metadata with args and name and whatever but without any nr.
Then dynamically allocate the map from nr to metadata?
> >
> > Could we at least have an array of (arch, nr) instead of just an array
> > of nrs in the metadata?
>
> I guess I'm not following you on what would be used for "arch".
Whatever syscall_get_arch() would return for the syscall. For x86,
for example, most syscalls have a compat nr and a non-compat nr. How
does tracing currently handle that?
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists