On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 08:54:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:28:11 +0100 > Mark Rutland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To make the name even better, let's just rename it to: > > > > > > ftrace_nop_initialization() > > > > > > I think that may be the best description for it. > > > > Perhaps ftrace_nop_initialize(), so that it's not a noun? > > > > I've made it ftrace_nop_initialization() in my branch for now. > > I'm fine with ftrace_nop_initialize().
It's settled, then. :) [...] > > | /** > > | * ftrace_init_nop - initialize a nop call site > > | * @mod: module structure if called by module load initialization > > | * @rec: the mcount call site record > > Perhaps say "mcount/fentry" This is the exact wording that ftrace_make_nop and ftrace_modify_call have. For consistency, I think those should all match. I can add " (e.g. mcount/fentry)" to all of those if you'd like? ... or leave them all as-is? > > | * > > | * This is a very sensitive operation and great care needs > > | * to be taken by the arch. The operation should carefully > > | * read the location, check to see if what is read is indeed > > | * what we expect it to be, and then on success of the compare, > > | * it should write to the location. > > | * > > | * The code segment at @rec->ip should be as initialized by the > > "should be as" is a bit confusing. What about? > > "The code segment at @rec->ip should contain the contents created by > the compiler". Works for me. Mark.
