On 2015/12/16 22:28, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:28:35 +0800
> "Zhang, Yanmin" wrote:
>
>>> + /*
>>> +* If the tracing is enabled, go ahead and enable the record.
>>> +*
>>> +* The reason not to enable the record immediatelly is the
>>> +* inherent check of ftr
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:28:35 +0800
"Zhang, Yanmin" wrote:
> > + /*
> > +* If the tracing is enabled, go ahead and enable the record.
> > +*
> > +* The reason not to enable the record immediatelly is the
> > +* inherent check of ftrace_make_nop/ftrace_make_call for
> > +* cor
On 2015/12/16 1:37, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:26:41 +0800
> "Zhang, Yanmin" wrote:
>
>>> This seems very hackish, although I can't think of a better way at the
>>> moment. But I would like not to add more code into module.c if
>>> possible, and just use a notifier unless ther
On 2015/12/16 1:37, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:26:41 +0800
> "Zhang, Yanmin" wrote:
>
>>> This seems very hackish, although I can't think of a better way at the
>>> moment. But I would like not to add more code into module.c if
>>> possible, and just use a notifier unless there
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:26:41 +0800
"Zhang, Yanmin" wrote:
> > This seems very hackish, although I can't think of a better way at the
> > moment. But I would like not to add more code into module.c if
> > possible, and just use a notifier unless there's a real reason we can't
> > (as there was whe
On 2015/12/15 9:05, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On 2015/12/14 23:51, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:16:18 +0800
>> "Qiu, PeiyangX" wrote:
>>
>>> We hit ftrace_bug report when booting Android on a 64bit ATOM SOC chip.
>>> Basically, there is a race between insmod and ftrace_run_update_c
On 2015/12/14 23:51, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:16:18 +0800
> "Qiu, PeiyangX" wrote:
>
>> We hit ftrace_bug report when booting Android on a 64bit ATOM SOC chip.
>> Basically, there is a race between insmod and ftrace_run_update_code.
>>
>> After load_module=>ftrace_module_init
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:16:18 +0800
"Qiu, PeiyangX" wrote:
> We hit ftrace_bug report when booting Android on a 64bit ATOM SOC chip.
> Basically, there is a race between insmod and ftrace_run_update_code.
>
> After load_module=>ftrace_module_init, another thread jumps in to call
> ftrace_run_upda
We hit ftrace_bug report when booting Android on a 64bit ATOM SOC chip.
Basically, there is a race between insmod and ftrace_run_update_code.
After load_module=>ftrace_module_init, another thread jumps in to call
ftrace_run_update_code=>ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare
=>se
We hit ftrace_bug report when booting Android on a 64bit ATOM SOC chip.
Basically, there is a race between insmod and ftrace_run_update_code.
After load_module=>ftrace_module_init, another thread jumps in to call
ftrace_run_update_code=>ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare
=>se
10 matches
Mail list logo
