From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755500Ab0EUNYe (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2010 09:24:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26417 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754666Ab0EUNYc (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2010 09:24:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:24:07 -0400 From: Jason Baron To: Ian Munsie Cc: fweisbec , mingo , rostedt , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] tracing: add compat syscall support v3 Message-ID: <20100521132405.GA2109@redhat.com> References: <1274433809-sup-5031@au1.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1274433809-sup-5031@au1.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 07:40:21PM +1000, Ian Munsie wrote: > Hi Jason, > > I'm currently in the process of implementing syscall tracepoints for > PowerPC, and a considerable amount of my work is going to end up > requiring these patches of yours. I've reviewed and tested your patches > (and spent a good chunk of time rebasing them on top of > tip/tracing/core) and they all seem pretty good. > > I *particularly* like the way in which they prevent ftrace syscalls from > reporting that sys_swapoff was constantly firing on x86_64 kernels with > a 32bit userspace ;) > > Anyway, I'm just wondering if you have an ETA for the v4 patchset to > address the remaining issues that Frederic raised so that they can be > merged. > > Cheers, > -Ian > hi Ian, I think the main issue left was that I am using the same meta data for both the 32-bit and 64-bit table entries, when they reference the same syscall. for example, for x86 both the compat and underlying 64-bit kernel reference 'sys_rename'. Thus, i am pointing both perf events at the same meta data. Frederic was saying they need to be separate. I'm not sure i completely understand why, since the 32-bit are just sign extended to 64-bit in this case. Frederic, perhaps, you can explain this a bit more for me? thanks, -Jason