[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87edckkb5z.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 16:15:04 +0100
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
To: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt
<palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Steven Rostedt
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mark
Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Ley Foon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>,
Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>, Sia Jee Heng
<jeeheng.sia@...rfivetech.com>, Björn Töpel
<bjorn@...osinc.com>, Song
Shuai <suagrfillet@...il.com>, Clément Léger
<cleger@...osinc.com>, Al
Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] riscv: Implement HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_CALL_OPS
Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com> writes:
>> Now, I think a better approach for RISC-V would be implementing what x86
>> has (arch_ftrace_update_trampoline()), rather than CALL_OPS for RISC-V.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I am going to spin some patches for implementing
> arch_ftrace_update_trampoline() for
> RISC-V, then we can compare the two approaches and see which is
> better. But I agree
> that arch_ftrace_update_trampoline() is a better approach given that
> we can jump anywhere
> with auipc/jalr.
Yup, and the text size wont blow up.
Cheers,
Björn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists