On 2017/03/15 09:11AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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.
Good to know, thanks for clarifying. In light of that, I hope that you're ok with the changes proposed to the ftrace bits under arch/powerpc in this patchset? - Naveen