On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:51:08 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > @@ -798,10 +798,6 @@ ftrace_pop_return_trace(struct ftrace_graph_ret *trace, unsigned long *ret, > > > > > > *index += FGRAPH_RET_INDEX; > > > *ret = ret_stack->ret; > > > - trace->func = ret_stack->func; > > > - trace->calltime = ret_stack->calltime; > > > - trace->overrun = atomic_read(¤t->trace_overrun); > > > - trace->depth = current->curr_ret_depth; > > > > There's a lot of information stored in the trace structure. Why not pass > > that to the new retregfunc? > > > > Then you don't need to separate this code out. > > Sorry, I couldn't catch what you meant, Would you mean to call > ftrace_pop_return_trace() before calling retregfunc()?? because some of the > information are found from ret_stack, which is poped from shadow stack. Ah, sorry I got what you said. I think this `trace` is not usable for the new interface. Most of the information is only used for the function-graph tracer. For example, trace->calltime and trace->overrun, trace->depth are used only for the function-graph tracer, but not for the other tracers. But yeah, this idea is considerable. It also allows us to just update entryfunc() and retfunc() to pass fgraph_regs and return address. Thank you! -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
