From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Matt Helsley <mhelsley@vmware.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/13] Cleanup recordmcount and begin objtool conversion
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 13:34:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190531183451.vncrseq2s7cpevrp@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190530235219.GB63275@rlwimi.vmware.com>
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 04:52:19PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > objtool orc+mcount ?
> > >
> > > That is, have '+' be a separator for cmd thingies. That would of course
> > > require all other arguments to be shared between all commands, which is
> > > currently already so, but I've not checked the mcount patches.
> >
> > The problem is that you have to combine "orc generate" with "mcount
> > record". Because even the subcommands have subcommands ;-)
> >
> > And also sharing arguments between all subcommands isn't ideal.
> >
> > Maybe could do:
> >
> > objtool orc generate [orc options] + mcount record [mcount options]
>
> I think that makes more sense; it'll be easier to construct
> Make recipes this way. I was thinking '+' would be something like the
> getopt handling of the '--' argument where it stops argument parsing so
> someting else can consume the remainder.
>
> The really interesting part is deciding which file to operate on is
> specified by the arguments to the first subcommand and subsequent subcmds
> would then operate on the same object file. For example:
>
> objtool orc generate [orc opts] foo.o + mcount record [mcount opts]
>
> Would it be clearer what's going on if the object file(s) were specified
> first and then the passes to run and their arguments came afterwards?
> I'm thinking it'd go somewhat like this:
>
> objtool foo.o [bar.o] -- check [check opts] + \
> orc generate [orc opts] + \
> mcount record [mcount opts]
>
> Then objtool would iterate over the object file(s) to open,
> hand off the ELF data structures into each successive pass, and
> finally write any accumulated changes back.
Yeah, I forgot about the .o file. Something like that would probably
work. The ordering seems a bit funny to me. Another possibly more
readable variation would be:
objtool check [check opts] + orc generate [orc opts] + mcount record [mcount opts] -- foo.o [bar.o]
or, just use '--' as a generic separator which can be used to separate
subcommands or file names.
objtool check [check opts] -- orc generate [orc opts] -- mcount record [mcount opts] -- foo.o [bar.o]
I kind of like that. But I think any of these variations would probably
work.
--
Josh
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-31 18:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-23 0:03 [RFC][PATCH 00/13] Cleanup recordmcount and begin objtool conversion Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/13] recordmcount: Remove redundant strcmp Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/13] recordmcount: Remove uread() Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/13] recordmcount: Remove unused fd from uwrite() and ulseek() Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/13] recordmcount: Rewrite error/success handling Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/13] recordmcount: Kernel style function signature formatting Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/13] recordmcount: Kernel style formatting Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/13] recordmcount: Remove redundant cleanup() calls Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/13] recordmcount: Clarify what cleanup() does Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/13] objtool: Prepare to merge recordmcount Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/13] objtool: Make recordmcount into an objtool subcmd Matt Helsley
2019-05-28 14:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/13] objtool: recordmcount: Start using objtool's elf wrapper Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/13] objtool: recordmcount: Search for __mcount_loc before walking the sections Matt Helsley
2019-05-23 0:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 13/13] objtool: recordmcount: Convert do_func() relhdrs Matt Helsley
2019-05-28 14:43 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/13] Cleanup recordmcount and begin objtool conversion Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-28 14:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-29 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-29 14:11 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-30 23:52 ` Matt Helsley
2019-05-31 18:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190531183451.vncrseq2s7cpevrp@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhelsley@vmware.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox