From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753386AbYIVBak (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:30:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752964AbYIVBad (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:30:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44531 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752958AbYIVBac (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:30:32 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:28:41 -0400 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Paul Mundt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Mathieu Desnoyers , Roland McGrath Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] tracehook: Hook in syscall tracing markers. Message-ID: <20080922012841.GA6199@redhat.com> References: <20080921021630.GA6443@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080921021630.GA6443@linux-sh.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi - > At kernel summit, the idea that syscall tracing was generally desirable > for tracing was mentioned several times, as was the argument that kernel > developers aren't placing markers in meaningful locations. This is a > simple patch to try and do that for the syscall case.[...] One problem with this is that a separate mechanism would be needed to activate these tracehook_report_* calls in the first place: the management of the per-task TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE flag. This is one of the things the utrace API makes straightforward, in which case its own native syscall reporting callbacks can be used directly. - FChE