[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191011134535.GZ2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:45:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/ftrace: Use text_poke()
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:33:19AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:59:03 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:28:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > Really the best solution is to move all the poking into
> > > ftrace_module_init(), before we mark it RO+X. That's what I'm going to
> > > do for jump_label and static_call as well, I just need to add that extra
> > > notifier callback.
> >
> > OK, so I started writing that patch... or rather, I wrote the patch and
> > started on the Changelog when I ran into trouble describing why we need
> > it.
> >
> > That is, I'm struggling to explain why we cannot flip
> > prepare_coming_module() and complete_formation().
> >
> > Yes, it breaks ftrace, but I'm thinking that is all it breaks. So let me
> > see if we can cure that.
>
> For someone that doesn't use modules, you are making me very nervous
> with all the changes you are making to the module code! ;-)
Hey, today I build a kernel with modules just for you :-)
And whatever it takes right, I just want to clean this crap up.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists