Hi all.
As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
error primarily in that:
* the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
* now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
* do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
include/linux/resume-trace.h.
We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
Randy, since this is substantially different to the work you did, I
haven't added your signed-off-by as we previously discussed.
Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
CC: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
CC: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 7 +++++++
drivers/base/power/trace.c | 5 ++++-
include/asm-i386/resume-trace.h | 13 +++++++++++++
include/asm-x86_64/resume-trace.h | 13 +++++++++++++
include/linux/resume-trace.h | 19 +++++--------------
kernel/power/Kconfig | 2 +-
6 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff -ruNp 200.patch-old/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S 200.patch-new/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
--- 200.patch-old/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S 2007-05-26 14:18:22.000000000 +1000
+++ 200.patch-new/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S 2007-05-26 14:23:52.000000000 +1000
@@ -52,6 +52,13 @@ SECTIONS
RODATA
+ . = ALIGN(4);
+ .tracedata : AT(ADDR(.tracedata) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
+ __tracedata_start = .;
+ *(.tracedata)
+ __tracedata_end = .;
+ }
+
. = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); /* Align data segment to page size boundary */
/* Data */
.data : AT(ADDR(.data) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
diff -ruNp 200.patch-old/drivers/base/power/trace.c 200.patch-new/drivers/base/power/trace.c
--- 200.patch-old/drivers/base/power/trace.c 2007-05-26 14:18:23.000000000 +1000
+++ 200.patch-new/drivers/base/power/trace.c 2007-05-26 14:23:52.000000000 +1000
@@ -142,6 +142,7 @@ void set_trace_device(struct device *dev
{
dev_hash_value = hash_string(DEVSEED, dev->bus_id, DEVHASH);
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_trace_device);
/*
* We could just take the "tracedata" index into the .tracedata
@@ -162,6 +163,7 @@ void generate_resume_trace(void *traceda
file_hash_value = hash_string(lineno, file, FILEHASH);
set_magic_time(user_hash_value, file_hash_value, dev_hash_value);
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(generate_resume_trace);
extern char __tracedata_start, __tracedata_end;
static int show_file_hash(unsigned int value)
@@ -170,7 +172,8 @@ static int show_file_hash(unsigned int v
char *tracedata;
match = 0;
- for (tracedata = &__tracedata_start ; tracedata < &__tracedata_end ; tracedata += 6) {
+ for (tracedata = &__tracedata_start ; tracedata < &__tracedata_end ;
+ tracedata += 2 + sizeof(unsigned long)) {
unsigned short lineno = *(unsigned short *)tracedata;
const char *file = *(const char **)(tracedata + 2);
unsigned int hash = hash_string(lineno, file, FILEHASH);
diff -ruNp 200.patch-old/include/asm-i386/resume-trace.h 200.patch-new/include/asm-i386/resume-trace.h
--- 200.patch-old/include/asm-i386/resume-trace.h 1970-01-01 10:00:00.000000000 +1000
+++ 200.patch-new/include/asm-i386/resume-trace.h 2007-05-26 16:07:31.000000000 +1000
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+#define TRACE_RESUME(user) do { \
+ if (pm_trace_enabled) { \
+ void *tracedata; \
+ asm volatile("movl $1f,%0\n" \
+ ".section .tracedata,\"a\"\n" \
+ "1:\t.word %c1\n" \
+ "\t.long %c2\n" \
+ ".previous" \
+ :"=r" (tracedata) \
+ : "i" (__LINE__), "i" (__FILE__)); \
+ generate_resume_trace(tracedata, user); \
+ } \
+} while (0)
diff -ruNp 200.patch-old/include/asm-x86_64/resume-trace.h 200.patch-new/include/asm-x86_64/resume-trace.h
--- 200.patch-old/include/asm-x86_64/resume-trace.h 1970-01-01 10:00:00.000000000 +1000
+++ 200.patch-new/include/asm-x86_64/resume-trace.h 2007-05-26 16:07:27.000000000 +1000
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+#define TRACE_RESUME(user) do { \
+ if (pm_trace_enabled) { \
+ void *tracedata; \
+ asm volatile("movq $1f,%0\n" \
+ ".section .tracedata,\"a\"\n" \
+ "1:\t.word %c1\n" \
+ "\t.quad %c2\n" \
+ ".previous" \
+ :"=r" (tracedata) \
+ : "i" (__LINE__), "i" (__FILE__)); \
+ generate_resume_trace(tracedata, user); \
+ } \
+} while (0)
diff -ruNp 200.patch-old/include/linux/resume-trace.h 200.patch-new/include/linux/resume-trace.h
--- 200.patch-old/include/linux/resume-trace.h 2007-05-26 14:18:47.000000000 +1000
+++ 200.patch-new/include/linux/resume-trace.h 2007-05-26 16:17:43.000000000 +1000
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
#define RESUME_TRACE_H
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_TRACE
+#include <asm/resume-trace.h>
extern int pm_trace_enabled;
@@ -9,20 +10,10 @@ struct device;
extern void set_trace_device(struct device *);
extern void generate_resume_trace(void *tracedata, unsigned int user);
-#define TRACE_DEVICE(dev) set_trace_device(dev)
-#define TRACE_RESUME(user) do { \
- if (pm_trace_enabled) { \
- void *tracedata; \
- asm volatile("movl $1f,%0\n" \
- ".section .tracedata,\"a\"\n" \
- "1:\t.word %c1\n" \
- "\t.long %c2\n" \
- ".previous" \
- :"=r" (tracedata) \
- : "i" (__LINE__), "i" (__FILE__)); \
- generate_resume_trace(tracedata, user); \
- } \
-} while (0)
+#define TRACE_DEVICE(dev) do { \
+ if (pm_trace_enabled) \
+ set_trace_device(dev); \
+ } while(0)
#else
diff -ruNp 200.patch-old/kernel/power/Kconfig 200.patch-new/kernel/power/Kconfig
--- 200.patch-old/kernel/power/Kconfig 2007-05-26 14:18:48.000000000 +1000
+++ 200.patch-new/kernel/power/Kconfig 2007-05-26 14:23:52.000000000 +1000
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ config DISABLE_CONSOLE_SUSPEND
config PM_TRACE
bool "Suspend/resume event tracing"
- depends on PM && PM_DEBUG && X86_32 && EXPERIMENTAL
+ depends on PM && PM_DEBUG && X86 && EXPERIMENTAL
default n
---help---
This enables some cheesy code to save the last PM event point in the
Hi!
> As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
> prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
> and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
> come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
> error primarily in that:
>
> * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
> CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
> * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
> CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
> * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
> include/linux/resume-trace.h.
>
> We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
> depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
> Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
ia64? did you mean x86-64?
Otherwise looks ok to me.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Pavel Machek pisze:
> Hi!
>
>> As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
>> prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
>> and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
>> come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
>> error primarily in that:
>>
>> * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
>> CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
>> * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
>> CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
>> * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
>> include/linux/resume-trace.h.
>>
>> We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
>> depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
>> Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
>
> ia64? did you mean x86-64?
>
> Otherwise looks ok to me.
>
IIRC enabling pm_trace on x86_64 was breaking compilation on ia64, so I
think Nigel meant the latter.
On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:32:54 +1000 Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
> prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
> and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
> come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
> error primarily in that:
>
> * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
> CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
> * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
> CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
> * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
> include/linux/resume-trace.h.
>
> We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
> depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
> Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
Correct, X86 is i386 and x86_64. Not IA64.
> Randy, since this is substantially different to the work you did, I
> haven't added your signed-off-by as we previously discussed.
OK.
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 22:10 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Pavel Machek pisze:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
> >> prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
> >> and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
> >> come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
> >> error primarily in that:
> >>
> >> * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
> >> CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
> >> * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
> >> CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
> >> * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
> >> include/linux/resume-trace.h.
> >>
> >> We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
> >> depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
> >> Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
> >
> > ia64? did you mean x86-64?
> >
> > Otherwise looks ok to me.
> >
> IIRC enabling pm_trace on x86_64 was breaking compilation on ia64, so I
> think Nigel meant the latter.
Yes, it was breaking ia64, so I meant what I said - I can test x86_64
easily. I was concerned about ensuring the condition was right for ia64.
Regards,
Nigel
On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 04:32:54PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi Nigel,
> As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
> prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
> and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
> come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
> error primarily in that:
>
> * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
> CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
> * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
> CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
> * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
> include/linux/resume-trace.h.
>
> We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
> depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
> Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
Can you post a copy of this that isn't mangled by quoted-printable encoding?
Whilst it looks fine in my MUA, the diff ends up looking like..
diff -ruNp 200.patch-old/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S 200.patch-new/arc=
h/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
--- 200.patch-old/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S 2007-05-26 14:18:22.0000=
00000 +1000
+++ 200.patch-new/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S 2007-05-26 14:23:52.0000=
00000 +1000
@@ -52,6 +52,13 @@ SECTIONS
=20
RODATA
=20
+ . =3D ALIGN(4);
+ .tracedata : AT(ADDR(.tracedata) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
+ __tracedata_start =3D .;
+ *(.tracedata)
+ __tracedata_end =3D .;
+ }
I'm beginning to think we really need a Documentation/Unhorking-MUAs-HOWTO
judging by the amount of broken encodings we seem to get to lkml these days.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:01:34 -0400 Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 04:32:54PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel,
>
> > As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
> > prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
> > and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
> > come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
> > error primarily in that:
> >
> > * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
> > CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
> > * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
> > CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
> > * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
> > include/linux/resume-trace.h.
> >
> > We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
> > depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
> > Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
>
> Can you post a copy of this that isn't mangled by quoted-printable encoding?
> Whilst it looks fine in my MUA, the diff ends up looking like..
yep :(
http://www.xenotime.net/linux/patches/x8664-pm-trace-support.patch
in case Nigel is asleep.
> I'm beginning to think we really need a Documentation/Unhorking-MUAs-HOWTO
> judging by the amount of broken encodings we seem to get to lkml these days.
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
Hi.
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:09 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 04:32:54PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nigel,
> >
> > > As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
> > > prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
> > > and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
> > > come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
> > > error primarily in that:
> > >
> > > * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef
> > > CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
> > > * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
> > > CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
> > > * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
> > > include/linux/resume-trace.h.
> > >
> > > We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
> > > depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
> > > Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
> >
> > Can you post a copy of this that isn't mangled by quoted-printable encoding?
> > Whilst it looks fine in my MUA, the diff ends up looking like..
>
> yep :(
>
> http://www.xenotime.net/linux/patches/x8664-pm-trace-support.patch
>
> in case Nigel is asleep.
Thanks Randy. I wasn't asleep, but was out for most of the day.
> > I'm beginning to think we really need a Documentation/Unhorking-MUAs-HOWTO
> > judging by the amount of broken encodings we seem to get to lkml these days.
That would be good. I just took a look through evo's settings, but can't
find whatever option is set wrong. I think it's devolved on me :\.
Regards,
Nigel