[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200219120519.22ba89c4@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:05:19 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, joel@...lfernandes.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, gustavo@...eddedor.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
luto@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, frederic@...nel.org,
dan.carpenter@...cle.com, mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/22] x86/doublefault: Make memmove()
notrace/NOKPROBE
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:27:47 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Or, we could just cut and paste the current memmove and make a notrace
> > version too. Then we don't need to worry bout bugs like this.
>
> OK, I will bite...
>
> Can we just make the core be an inline function and make a notrace and
> a trace caller? Possibly going one step further and having one call
> the other? (Presumably the traceable version invoking the notrace
> version, but it has been one good long time since I have looked at
> function preambles.)
Sure. Looking at the implementation (which is big and ugly), we could
have a
static always_inline void __memmove(...)
{
[..]
}
__visible void *memmove(...)
{
return __memmove(...);
}
__visible notrace void *memmove_notrace(...)
{
return __memmove(...);
}
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists