[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191113092741.18abd63b@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:27:41 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 05/17] x86/ftrace: Use text_poke()
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:01:04 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > And that printk() never printed, even after running the ftracetests.
>
> Well, then wth did it do that set_all_modules_text_rw() nonsense?
> Because all I did was preserve that semantic.
Because the ftracetests obviously is missing a check :-p
It never printed when running those tests, but when I did a simple:
# trace-cmd start -p function
# modprobe <some-module>
The printk appeared.
Yeah, let's keep it this way, but still needs a comment.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists