> On Nov 5, 2023, at 5:47 PM, David Laight wrote:
>
> gcc always assumes that inline asm changes "cc" - there is no need
> to add a 'clobber' for it.
Thanks. I was unaware of this behavior.
___
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:34 AM, Anton Ivanov
> wrote:
>
> On 04/11/2023 09:25, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>> I was reading (again) the x86 C macro of “alternative()” and I was a bit
>> surprised it does clobber the flags (“cc”) as a precaution.
>>
>&g
I was reading (again) the x86 C macro of “alternative()” and I was a bit
surprised it does clobber the flags (“cc”) as a precaution.
#define alternative(oldinstr, newinstr, ft_flags) \
asm_inline volatile (ALTERNATIVE(oldinstr, newinstr, ft_flags) : : :
"memory")
Actually there seems
> On May 25, 2023, at 7:28 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2023 14:00:39 -0700
> Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> From: Nadav Amit
>>
>> Functions that are marked as "inline" are currently also not tracable.
>> This limits traci
On Nov 29, 2022, at 7:06 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 04:25:38 +
> Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>
>> I will need to further debug it, but this issue does not occur every time.
>>
>> The kernel didn’t crash exactly - it’s more of a deadlock.
On Nov 28, 2022, at 8:15 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> !! External Email
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 02:36:22 +0000
> Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> On Nov 22, 2022, at 12:51 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>>> But more importantly, the current “inline”->”notrace” solutio
On Nov 22, 2022, at 12:51 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> But more importantly, the current “inline”->”notrace” solution just papers
> over missing “notrace” annotations. Anyone can remove the “inline” at any
> given moment since there is no direct (or indirect) relationship betwe
On Nov 22, 2022, at 12:09 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> !! External Email
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022, at 20:53, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> From: Nadav Amit
>>
>> Functions that are marked as "inline" are currently also not tracable.
>> Apparently, this h
