On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:32:34 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 08:10:37 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> > >
> > > I may add some compiler hacks to enforce this. Something like:
> > >
> > > struct ftrace_regs {
> > > void *nothing_to_see_here;
> > > };
> >
> > Yeah
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 08:10:37 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> >
> > I may add some compiler hacks to enforce this. Something like:
> >
> > struct ftrace_regs {
> > void *nothing_to_see_here;
> > };
>
> Yeah, OK. But sizeof(fregs) may be changed. (Shouldn't we do too?)
Honestly, I
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 20:59:05 +0200
Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 12:29:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:16:56 +0200
> > Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >
> > > This does not pass the ftrace selftests. Please merge the patch below
> > > into this patch. With
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:55:39 +0100
Will Deacon wrote:
> The arm64 part looks good to me, although passing a partially-populated
> struct out of asm feels like it's going to cause us hard-to-debug
> problems down the line if any of those extra fields get used. How hard
> would it be to poison the
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 05:11:44AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:08:51 +0900
> "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" wrote:
>
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
> >
> > Use ftrace_regs instead of fgraph_ret_regs for tracing return value
> > on function_graph tracer because of sim
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 12:29:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:16:56 +0200
> Heiko Carstens wrote:
>
> > This does not pass the ftrace selftests. Please merge the patch below
> > into this patch. With that:
> >
> > Acked-by: Heiko Carstens
>
> Thank you very much, thi
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:16:56 +0200
Heiko Carstens wrote:
> This does not pass the ftrace selftests. Please merge the patch below
> into this patch. With that:
>
> Acked-by: Heiko Carstens
Thank you very much, this is why I wanted arch maintainers acks before
taking anything.
There may be othe
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 05:15:59AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Can I get an Acked-by from the S390 maintainers for this patch?
...
> > +static __always_inline unsigned long
> > +ftrace_regs_get_frame_pointer(struct ftrace_regs *fregs)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long *sp;
> > +
> > + sp = (vo
Can I get an Acked-by from the X86 maintainers for this patch?
Thanks!
-- Steve
On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:08:51 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" wrote:
> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
>
> Use ftrace_regs instead of fgraph_ret_regs for tracing return value
> on function_graph tracer becaus
Can I get an Acked-by from the S390 maintainers for this patch?
Thanks!
-- Steve
On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:08:51 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" wrote:
> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
>
> Use ftrace_regs instead of fgraph_ret_regs for tracing return value
> on function_graph tracer becau
Can I get an Acked-by from the RISC-V maintainers for this patch?
Thanks!
-- Steve
On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:08:51 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" wrote:
> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
>
> Use ftrace_regs instead of fgraph_ret_regs for tracing return value
> on function_graph tracer bec
Can I get an Acked-by from the AARCH64 maintainers for this patch?
Thanks!
-- Steve
On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:08:51 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" wrote:
> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
>
> Use ftrace_regs instead of fgraph_ret_regs for tracing return value
> on function_graph tracer be
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
Use ftrace_regs instead of fgraph_ret_regs for tracing return value
on function_graph tracer because of simplifying the callback interface.
The CONFIG_HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_RETVAL is also replaced by
CONFIG_HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_FREGS.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu
13 matches
Mail list logo
