Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:06:02 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 07/14] fgraph: Add new fgraph_ops structure to
 enable function graph hooks
Message-ID: <20181126160602.1b5605df@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20181126203049.88df7c2cafed2b30a9d02bb9@kernel.org>
References: <20181122012708.491151844@goodmis.org>
        <20181122012803.576692300@goodmis.org>
        <20181126203049.88df7c2cafed2b30a9d02bb9@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:30:49 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:

> > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > index f98063e273e5..477ff9412d26 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > @@ -749,6 +749,18 @@ typedef int (*trace_func_graph_ent_t)(struct ftrace_graph_ent *); /* entry */
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> >  
> > +struct fgraph_ops {
> > +	trace_func_graph_ent_t		entryfunc;
> > +	trace_func_graph_ret_t		retfunc;  
> 
> > +	struct fgraph_ops __rcu		*next;
> > +	unsigned long			flags;
> > +	void				*private;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> > +	struct ftrace_ops_hash		local_hash;
> > +	struct ftrace_ops_hash		*func_hash;
> > +#endif  
> 
> Hmm, can we introduce these fields when we actually use it?

Sure.

> 
> BTW, would you have any idea for using private field?

I believe I answered this in another email.

-- Steve