Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:06:32 +0200 Torsten Duwe wrote: > Maybe the code in question can be replaced with the change below, now that > there is a preprocessor define in V2? > (untested) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > index 3f743b1..695a646 100644 >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:06:32 +0200 Torsten Duwe wrote: > Maybe the code in question can be replaced with the change below, now that > there is a preprocessor define in V2? > (untested) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > index 3f743b1..695a646 100644 > ---

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:08:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:24:55 +0200 > Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:57:10AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:48:24 -0500 > > > Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:08:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:24:55 +0200 > Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:57:10AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:48:24 -0500 > > > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > > > > Here, with

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:24:55 +0200 Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:57:10AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:48:24 -0500 > > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > > Here, with -fprolog-pad, it's already a nop, so no change is

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:24:55 +0200 Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:57:10AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:48:24 -0500 > > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > > Here, with -fprolog-pad, it's already a nop, so no change is needed. > > > > > Yes, exactly.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:57:10AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:48:24 -0500 > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > Here, with -fprolog-pad, it's already a nop, so no change is needed. > > Yes, exactly. > That's what I was thinking. But as I stated in

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:57:10AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:48:24 -0500 > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > Here, with -fprolog-pad, it's already a nop, so no change is needed. > > Yes, exactly. > That's what I was thinking. But as I stated in another email (probably >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:48:24 -0500 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > My understanding is that other arches don't need this check because they > use -mfentry, so they have to modify the "call fentry" instruction to a > nop on startup. > > Here, with -fprolog-pad, it's already a nop,

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:48:24 -0500 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > My understanding is that other arches don't need this check because they > use -mfentry, so they have to modify the "call fentry" instruction to a > nop on startup. > > Here, with -fprolog-pad, it's already a nop, so no change is

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:24:21 +0200 Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2016-07-08 17:07:09, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:24:21 +0200 Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2016-07-08 17:07:09, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:24:21PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2016-07-08 17:07:09, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:24:21PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2016-07-08 17:07:09, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri 2016-07-08 17:07:09, Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > > > of each function, like the concept proven in > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri 2016-07-08 17:07:09, Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > > > of each function, like the concept proven in > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > > of each function, like the concept proven in > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > > of each function, like the concept proven in > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > of each function, like the concept proven in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html > (sans the "fprintf (... pad_size);", which spoils the data structure > for

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Mon 2016-06-27 17:17:17, Torsten Duwe wrote: > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > of each function, like the concept proven in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html > (sans the "fprintf (... pad_size);", which spoils the data structure > for

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 07:53:44AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > > of each function, like the concept proven in > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 07:53:44AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > > of each function, like the concept proven in > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

Hi, [auto build test ERROR on arm64/for-next/core] [also build test ERROR on v4.7-rc5 next-20160701] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url:

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

Hi, [auto build test ERROR on arm64/for-next/core] [also build test ERROR on v4.7-rc5 next-20160701] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url:

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > of each function, like the concept proven in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html > (sans the "fprintf (... pad_size);", which spoils the data

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote: > Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning > of each function, like the concept proven in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html > (sans the "fprintf (... pad_size);", which spoils the data

[PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning of each function, like the concept proven in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html (sans the "fprintf (... pad_size);", which spoils the data structure for kernel use), the generated pads can nicely be used to

[PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: implement FTRACE_WITH_REGS

Once gcc is enhanced to optionally generate NOPs at the beginning of each function, like the concept proven in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01671.html (sans the "fprintf (... pad_size);", which spoils the data structure for kernel use), the generated pads can nicely be used to