[PATCHv4] arm: ftrace: Adds support for CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS

[abelvesa@gmail.com (Abel Vesa)]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:46:38AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:22:27AM +0000, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:58:49AM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> > > Hi Abel,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Feb 28 2017, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:52:06PM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Feb 24 2017, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > >> Wouldn't it be better (and more consistent with other archs) to have
> > > >> 
> > > >>   pt_regs->ARM_lr = original lr
> > > >>   pt_refs->ARM_pc = current lr
> > > >> 
> > > >> instead?
> > > 
> > > The stack would look like this then
> > > 
> > > @ ...           | ARM_ip | ARM_sp | ARM_lr      | ARM_pc      | ...          |
> > > @ 0  4          48       52       56            60            64    68       72
> > > @ R0 | R1 | ... | LR     | SP + 4 | original LR | original PC | PSR | OLD_R0 | original LR |
> > > 
> > > I.e. the pt_regs would capture almost the full context of the
> > > instrumented function (except for ip).
> > > 
> > So basicly what you are saying is:
> > - instead of current LR save original LR (previous one saved in instrumented function epilog)
> > - instead of current PC save original PC (previous one saved in instrumented function epilog)
> > 
> > I still don't see the point of saving the actual value of PC since nobody will ever
> > restore it. In case of livepatch it will get overwritten anyway. As for LR, I agree,
> > it could be the original one in pt_regs.
> > 
> > I'll look into this sometime today or tomorrow and get back with updates.
> 
> Which is exactly what I proposed, with code, on one of the previous
> iterations of this patch...
Fair enough. I probably missunderstood your comments then.

Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.