On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:22:27 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > Well, I guess the answer to that is what do you consider the trampoline? > > I'm currently considering it to be the assembly code that the > > mcount/fentry call jumps to. We only have two trampolines (three if you > > count the function graph code that will be called directly come 3.17). > > Those two are the normal ftrace_caller and the ftrace_regs_caller. > > BTW, on those archs that support regs saving already, is there really a > reson not to kill ftrace_caller and keep just ftrace_regs_caller? > Consistency. Perhaps the two can be the same trampoline, which would be trivial to implement, but I wouldn't kill one which would make the generic code more complex. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
