linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: Updates for 5.10

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20201016130545.caea7a3312ca2ee32990af61@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:05:45 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: Updates for 5.10

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 23:54:44 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:53:23 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > I'll have to think about how to untangle this. Is there some kind of
> > > annotation that makes it show that a path can only be called at boot up and
> > > not later?  
> > 
> > What happen if we use Peter's static_call() and update it after boot up? 
> 
> I think that's a bit over engineering ;-)
> 
> > Or, we might need to break apart the trace_array_create() and restruct
> > it as __init trace_array_early_create() and trace_array_create().
> 
> That will likely make the code a bit more complex and possibly add as much
> code as we save from the __init sections.
> 
> I think the best solution is what you proposed, and removing the __init,
> and possibly making that function inline as well.
> 
> Care to send an official patch?

Sure, I'll send it.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>