[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yt9d5y4pozrl.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 09:17:02 +0200
From: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/9] fprobe: rethook: Use ftrace_regs in fprobe exit
handler and rethook
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> writes:
> I found that this is not enough becuase s390/loongarch already implemented
> their rethook, and as far as I can see, the s390 ftrace_regs does not save
> the required registers for rethook. Thus, for such architecture, we need
> another kconfig flag and keep using the pt_regs for rethook.
Looking into arch_rethook_trampoline() i think we save all required
registers - which register do you think are missing? Or is there another
function i should look at?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists