[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8aMhihmrahvFnrU@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:54:46 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Joan Bruguera <joanbrugueram@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
Jörg Rödel <joro@...tes.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] x86/power: Sprinkle some noinstr
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Nope, they do as they say on the tin.
>
> noinstr void foo(void)
> {
> }
>
> declares the whole function as non-instrumented.
>
> Within such functions, we demark regions where instrumentation is
> allowed by:
>
> noinstr void foo(void)
> {
> instrumentation_begin();
> /* code that calls non-noinstr functions goes here */
> instrumentation_end();
Indeed, you are right - I should have gotten more of my morning tea ... :-/
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists