From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:28:54 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: ftrace: Ensure code modifications are synchronised
 across all cpus
In-Reply-To: <1354892111.13000.50.camel@linaro1.home>
References: <1354817466.30905.13.camel@linaro1.home>
 <1354821581.17101.17.camel@gandalf.local.home>
 <1354872138.3176.15.camel@computer5.home>
 <1354888985.17101.41.camel@gandalf.local.home>
 <1354892111.13000.50.camel@linaro1.home>
Message-ID: <1354894134.17101.44.camel@gandalf.local.home>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 14:55 +0000, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>  
> > But also realize that function tracing is special :-) We have no cases
> > like this. The instruction being replaced is a call to mcount. In fact,
> > we replace it at boot with a nop. And this method only replaces that nop
> > into a call to function tracer, or replaces the call to function tracer
> > back to a nop. Always at the start of the function, and never involved
> > with conditionals. This limitation that function tracing imposes on what
> > we replace makes things a bit more sane in how we replace it.
> 
> Then perhaps the method you suggest will work on ARM :-). However, that
> is not something I personally propose to implement at this time. (I was
> doing my good Samaritan act by trying to fix the crashes which another
> team was getting when trying to use ftrace.)
> 

I'm not NACKing your previous patch, I was just suggesting to bring ARM
up to the future :-)

I have no problems with the patch, but I just want to put it out there
that there's better ways. It's part of the remove stomp_machine()
crusade ;-)

-- Steve