On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 13:57 +0800, Zumeng Chen wrote: > Hi All, > > 1028ccf5 did a change for sys_call_table from a pointer to an array of > unsigned long, I think it's not proper, here is my reason: > > sys_call_table defined as a label in assembler should be pointer array > rather than an array as described in 1028ccf5. If we defined it as an > array, then arch_syscall_addr will return the address of sys_call_table[], > actually the content of sys_call_table[] is demanded by arch_syscall_addr. > so 'perf list' will ignore all syscalls since find_syscall_meta will > return null > in init_ftrace_syscalls because of the wrong arch_syscall_addr. > > Did I miss something, or Gcc compiler has done something newer ?
Hi Zumeng, It works for me with the code as it is in mainline. I don't quite follow your explanation, so if you're seeing a bug please send some information about what you're actually seeing. And include the disassembly of arch_syscall_addr() and your compiler version etc. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
