On 2017/03/10 11:54AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 21:38:53 +0530 > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On 2017/03/10 10:45AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:38:53 +1100 > > > Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > > > > So if we drop that we're left with ftrace.S - which seems perfect to > > > > me. > > > > > > Yeah, I agree. But then there's the problem that ftrace.c and ftrace.S > > > will get the same ftrace.o. Maybe make it ftrace-hook.S ? > > > > I've avoided that issue by naming the files ftrace_32.S and ftrace_64.S > > (which gets further split up). > > That's what I looked at doing for x86 as well. But not all archs have > 32 / 64 splits. Should we look to have something that all archs can be > consistent with?
I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I feel that x86 can simply use ftrace_64.S, seeing as the current name is mcount_64.S. Other architectures could do something similar too, or fall back to ftrace_hook.S. That way, all ftrace low-level code can simply be referred to as arch/*/ftrace_*.S - Naveen