Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] powerpc: split ftrace bits into a separate file

["Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 2017/03/10 10:45AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:38:53 +1100
> Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:04:15 +1100
> > > Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > kernel/trace/ftrace.c more obvious.  
> > >> 
> > >> I don't know if it's really worth keeping the names the same across
> > >> arches, especially as we already have:
> > >> 
> > >>   arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> > >>   arch/arm/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
> > >>   arch/blackfin/kernel/ftrace-entry.S
> > >>   arch/metag/kernel/ftrace_stub.S
> > >> 
> > >> But we can rename it if you feel strongly about it.  
> > >
> > > Hmm, perhaps "entry-ftrace.S" would be the better name. I never liked
> > > the "mcount.S" name.  
> > 
> > Except what does the "entry" part mean?
> > 
> > Traditionally entry.S has been for the code that "enters" the kernel,
> > ie. from userspace or elsewhere. But that's not the case with any of the
> > ftrace code, it's kernel code called from the kernel. So using "entry"
> > is a bit wrong IMHO.
> > 
> > So if we drop that we're left with ftrace.S - which seems perfect to me.
> 
> Yeah, I agree. But then there's the problem that ftrace.c and ftrace.S
> will get the same ftrace.o. Maybe make it ftrace-hook.S ?

I've avoided that issue by naming the files ftrace_32.S and ftrace_64.S 
(which gets further split up).

Thanks,
Naveen