Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932406AbWIZS5u (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:57:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932408AbWIZS5u (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:57:50 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:46772 "EHLO mail.goop.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932406AbWIZS5t (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:57:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4519781D.9040503@goop.org> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:57:33 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mathieu Desnoyers CC: Martin Bligh , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Masami Hiramatsu , prasanna@in.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Jes Sorensen , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , Michel Dagenais , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , ltt-dev@shafik.org, systemtap@sources.redhat.com, Alan Cox , Karim Yaghmour , Pavel Machek , Joe Perches , "Randy.Dunlap" , "Jose R. Santos" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.13 for 2.6.17 References: <20060925233349.GA2352@Krystal> <20060925235617.GA3147@Krystal> <45187146.8040302@goop.org> <20060926002551.GA18276@Krystal> <20060926004535.GA2978@Krystal> <45187C0E.1080601@goop.org> <20060926025924.GA27366@Krystal> <4518B4A0.6070509@goop.org> <20060926180414.GA10497@Krystal> In-Reply-To: <20060926180414.GA10497@Krystal> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1261 Lines: 34 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Hi, > > Ok, so as far as I can see, we can only control the execution flow by modifying > values in the output list of the asm. > > Do you think the following would work ? > > > #define MARK_JUMP(name, format, args...) \ > do { \ > char condition; \ > asm volatile( ".section .markers, \"a\";\n\t" \ > ".long 0f;\n\t" \ > ".previous;\n\t" \ > "0:\n\t" \ > "movb $0,%1;\n\t" \ > : "+m" (__marker_sequencer), \ > "=r" (condition) : ); \ > if(unlikely(condition)) { \ > MARK_CALL(name, format, ## args); \ > } \ > } while(0) > Yep, that looks reasonable. Though you could just directly test a per-marker enable flag, rather than using "condition"... J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/