[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3bf77687-61c1-6d05-eea8-afe11a268421@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:52:55 +0800
From: Li Huafei <lihuafei1@...wei.com>
To: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
CC: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Anil S Keshavamurthy" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <jszhang@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <liaochang1@...wei.com>,
Patrick Stählin <me@...ki.ch>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] riscv: ftrace: Fix the comments about the number of
ftrace instruction
On 2022/4/26 14:22, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 9:59 AM Li Huafei <lihuafei1@...wei.com> wrote:
>> When DYNAMIC_FTRACE is enabled, we put four instructions in front of the
>> function for ftrace use, not five.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Huafei <lihuafei1@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c
>> index 4716f4cdc038..63f457650fa4 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c
>> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static int __ftrace_modify_call(unsigned long hook_pos, unsigned long target,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Put 5 instructions with 16 bytes at the front of function within
>> + * Put 4 instructions with 16 bytes at the front of function within
> Yeah, 5 instructions are for mcount, -fpatchable-function-entry=8
> cause 8 16bit instructions.
I misunderstood, thanks for the clarification.
>
> Fixes: afc76b8b8011 ("riscv: Using PATCHABLE_FUNCTION_ENTRY instead of MCOUNT")
There is no functional fix here, do we need to add the fix tag?
>
> I recommend just delete "4 instructions with"
> - * Put 5 instructions with 16 bytes at the front of function within
> - * patchable function entry nops' area.
> + * Put 16 bytes at the front of the function within the patchable
> + * function entry nops' area.
I agree and will use this modification for the next version, thanks!
Huafei
>
>> * patchable function entry nops' area.
>> *
>> * 0: REG_S ra, -SZREG(sp)
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists