[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230315194334.58eb56ab@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 19:43:34 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
andrii@...nel.org, kpsingh@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
xukuohai@...weicloud.com, lihuafei1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] ftrace: Store direct called addresses in their
ops
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 19:21:29 +0100
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org> wrote:
> @@ -5445,6 +5445,7 @@ __modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr)
> /* Enable the tmp_ops to have the same functions as the direct ops */
> ftrace_ops_init(&tmp_ops);
> tmp_ops.func_hash = ops->func_hash;
> + tmp_ops.direct_call = addr;
>
> err = register_ftrace_function_nolock(&tmp_ops);
> if (err)
> @@ -5466,6 +5467,7 @@ __modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr)
> entry->direct = addr;
> }
> }
> + WRITE_ONCE(ops->direct_call, addr);
I'm curious about the use of WRITE_ONCE(). It should not go outside the
mutex barrier.
-- Steve
>
> mutex_unlock(&ftrace_lock);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists