Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754769Ab2FOIPe (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:15:34 -0400 Received: from mail9.hitachi.co.jp ([133.145.228.44]:41412 "EHLO mail9.hitachi.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754530Ab2FOIPZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:15:25 -0400 X-AuditID: b753bd60-9fe84ba000000655-f3-4fdaef1a1f96 X-AuditID: b753bd60-9fe84ba000000655-f3-4fdaef1a1f96 Message-ID: <4FDAEF18.6040703@hitachi.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:15:20 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu Organization: Hitachi, Ltd., Japan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Frederic Weisbecker , yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13 v2] ftrace/x86: Add separate function to save regs References: <20120612224327.426900129@goodmis.org> <20120612225425.218922417@goodmis.org> In-Reply-To: <20120612225425.218922417@goodmis.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2070 Lines: 45 (2012/06/13 7:43), Steven Rostedt wrote: > From: Steven Rostedt > > Add a way to have different functions calling different trampolines. > If a ftrace_ops wants regs saved on the return, then have only the > functions with ops registered to save regs. Functions registered by > other ops would not be affected, unless the functions overlap. > > If one ftrace_ops registered functions A, B and C and another ops > registered fucntions to save regs on A, and D, then only functions > A and D would be saving regs. Function B and C would work as normal. > Although A is registered by both ops: normal and saves regs; this is fine > as saving the regs is needed to satisfy one of the ops that calls it > but the regs are ignored by the other ops function. > > x86_64 implements the full regs saving, and i386 just passes a NULL > for regs to satisfy the ftrace_ops passing. Where an arch must supply > both regs and ftrace_ops parameters, even if regs is just NULL. > > It is OK for an arch to pass NULL regs. All function trace users that > require regs passing must add the flag FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS when > registering the ftrace_ops and either check if regs is not NULL or > check if ARCH_SUPPORTS_FTRACE_SAVE_REGS. If the arch supports passing > regs it will set this macro and pass regs for ops that request them. > All other archs will just pass NULL. Hmm, so would you mean that user is responsible for checking whether the arch supports save_regs or not? I would rather like ftrace to check it as my patch has done. I think ARCH_SUPPORTS_FTRACE_SAVE_REGS macro checking in all handler code is something like odd... Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com -- 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/