On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:08:03 -0600
Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > Or do we just ignore the high "special" ARM syscalls and treat them (from
> > the tracing point of view) as non-syscalls, avoiding the allocation of
> > something around 1.2MB for the syscall bitmap. I really don't know, I
> > don't use
On 10/30/2014 06:35 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:30:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:14:41 +
>> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We have always had syscall number range of 0x90 or so. The tracing
>>> design does not e
* Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:26:06AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > > ARM has some private syscalls (for example, set_tls(2)) which lie
> > > outside the range of NR_syscalls. If any of the
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 07:52:23 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Bah, I misread the patch. I shouldn't read patches before having my
> morning coffee :-/
>
That's what I get by reading email before doing my morning Physical
Therapy treatment.
I'm off to do my PT exercises and then have breakfast.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 07:10:39 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:18:08 +
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:26:06AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > > > ARM has some priv
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:30:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:14:41 +
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
>
> > We have always had syscall number range of 0x90 or so. The tracing
> > design does not expect that. Therefore, the tracing design did not take
> >
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:14:41 +
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> We have always had syscall number range of 0x90 or so. The tracing
> design does not expect that. Therefore, the tracing design did not take
> account of ARM when it was created. Therefore, it's up to the tracing
> peopl
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:10:39AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:18:08 +
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:26:06AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > > > ARM has some
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:18:08 +
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:26:06AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > > ARM has some private syscalls (for example, set_tls(2)) which lie
> > > outside the rang
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:26:06AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > ARM has some private syscalls (for example, set_tls(2)) which lie
> > outside the range of NR_syscalls. If any of these are called while
> > syscall tracing is be
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> ARM has some private syscalls (for example, set_tls(2)) which lie
> outside the range of NR_syscalls. If any of these are called while
> syscall tracing is being performed, out-of-bounds array access will
> occur in the ftrace and pe
11 matches
Mail list logo
