On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:35:16 +0530 "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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 Just to clarify, I'm currently working on patches to clean up the ftrace.S code in x86, and I renamed mcount_64.S to ftrace_64.S. I'm also moving the ftrace code out of entry_32.S into a ftrace_32.S file as well. Patches will hopefully be posted soon. -- Steve