Puranjay Mohan <puranja...@gmail.com> writes: >> Now, I think a better approach for RISC-V would be implementing what x86 >> has (arch_ftrace_update_trampoline()), rather than CALL_OPS for RISC-V. >> >> Thoughts? > > I am going to spin some patches for implementing > arch_ftrace_update_trampoline() for > RISC-V, then we can compare the two approaches and see which is > better. But I agree > that arch_ftrace_update_trampoline() is a better approach given that > we can jump anywhere > with auipc/jalr.
Yup, and the text size wont blow up. Cheers, Björn
