From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jon.medhurst@linaro.org (Jon Medhurst (Tixy)) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:34:42 +0100 Subject: [ltt-dev] LTTng 2.0 on ARM In-Reply-To: <20110916162507.GB2100@arm.com> References: <4E68559A.8080204@linaro.org> <4E6E4250.2000309@linaro.org> <4E6F3B93.5050603@linaro.org> <20110914100931.GB2104@arm.com> <1316017628.2576.44.camel@linaro1> <20110916162507.GB2100@arm.com> Message-ID: <1316270082.3681.20.camel@computer2> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 17:25 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 05:27:08PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > > This is the same issue I found recently with kprobes [1]. There is also > > an inconsistency as function symbols in loadable module do have bit zero > > set, but if the module is built-in then bit zero is clear. > > Does that mean that some different infrastructure is used to get the module > symbols compared with kallsyms? Yes, there's different infrastructure to handle symbols in loadable modules compared to those in the kernel binary. I mentioned this in [1], or in your Linaro inbox on 29th Aug ;-) > That feels nasty -- they should at least > be consistent... I agree, getting them consistent would solve half the problem. -- Tixy [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg138283.html