[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220321124551.3d73660b@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:45:51 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
mhiramat@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, hjl.tools@...il.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, rppt@...nel.org,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 17:40:32 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> func_B:
> call __fentry__ /* push func_B */
> ...
> call __fexit__ /* pop 1 + tails */
> ret
>
> func_A:
> call __fentry__ /* push func_A */
> ...
> call __ftail__ /* mark func_A tail */
> jmp func_B
>
> func_C:
> call __fentry__ /* push func_C */
> call func_A;
> ...
> call __fexit__ /* pop 1 + tails */
> ret;
This also assumes that we need to trace everything that is marked. I
mentioned in another email, what do we do if we only trace funcA?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists