On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:33:52 +0100
Petr Mládek wrote:
> Yes, it works but I would still do few more changes:
>
> + run_sync() also in ftrace_modify_code() in the recovery
>part; I would solve this by moving the "out" label.
Sounds good.
>
> + print some warning in update_ft
On Thu 20-02-14 23:23:08, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:22:49 +0100
> Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > Ftrace modifies function calls using Int3 breakpoints on x86. It patches
> > all functions in parallel to reduce the number of sync() calls. There is
> > a code that removes pending Int
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:22:49 +0100
Petr Mladek wrote:
> Ftrace modifies function calls using Int3 breakpoints on x86. It patches
> all functions in parallel to reduce the number of sync() calls. There is
> a code that removes pending Int3 breakpoints when something goes wrong.
>
> The recovery d
Ftrace modifies function calls using Int3 breakpoints on x86. It patches
all functions in parallel to reduce the number of sync() calls. There is
a code that removes pending Int3 breakpoints when something goes wrong.
The recovery does not work on x86_64. I simulated an error in
ftrace_replace_cod
4 matches
Mail list logo
