On Fri, 24 May 2024 18:41:56 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:08:00 +0900 > "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Steven Rostedt (VMware) (15): > > function_graph: Convert ret_stack to a series of longs > > fgraph: Use BUILD_BUG_ON() to make sure we have structures divisible by long > > function_graph: Add an array structure that will allow multiple callbacks > > function_graph: Allow multiple users to attach to function graph > > function_graph: Remove logic around ftrace_graph_entry and return > > ftrace/function_graph: Pass fgraph_ops to function graph callbacks > > ftrace: Allow function_graph tracer to be enabled in instances > > ftrace: Allow ftrace startup flags exist without dynamic ftrace > > function_graph: Have the instances use their own ftrace_ops for filtering > > function_graph: Add "task variables" per task for fgraph_ops > > function_graph: Move set_graph_function tests to shadow stack global var > > function_graph: Move graph depth stored data to shadow stack global var > > function_graph: Move graph notrace bit to shadow stack global var > > function_graph: Implement fgraph_reserve_data() and fgraph_retrieve_data() > > function_graph: Add selftest for passing local variables > > Hi Masami, > > While reviewing these patches, I realized there's several things I dislike > about the patches I wrote. So I took these patches and started cleaning > them up a little. Mostly renaming functions and adding comments. Thanks for cleaning up the patches!! > > As this is a major change to the function graph tracer, and I feel nervous > about building something on top of this, how about I take over these > patches and push them out for the next merge window. I'm hoping to get them > into linux-next by v6.10-rc2 (I spent the day working on them, and it's > mostly minor tweaks). OK. > Then I can push it out to 6.11 and get some good testing against it. Then > we can add your stuff on top and get that merged in 6.12. Yeah, it is reasonable plan. I also concerns about the stability. Especially, this involves fprobe side changes too. If we introduce both at once, it may mess up many things. > > If all goes well, I'm hoping to get a series on just these patches (and > your selftest addition) by tonight. > > Thoughts? I agree with you. Thank you, > > -- Steve -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
