On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 07:19:58PM +0100, Florent Revest wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 5:57 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace.h b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > index 84f717f8959e..3d2156e335d7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > @@ -241,6 +241,12 @@ enum {
> > FTRACE_OPS_FL_DIRECT = BIT(17),
> > };
> >
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS
> > +#define FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_ARGS FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS
> > +#else
> > +#define FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_ARGS 0
>
> Mh, could we (theoretically) be in a situation where an arch supports
> WITH_ARGS but it also has two ftrace_caller trampolines: one that
> saves the args and the other that saves nothing ? (For example if x86
> migrates their WITH_REGS to WITH_ARGS only)
I don't think so -- the point of WITH_ARGS is that we always have to
save/restore the args, and when WITH_ARGS is selected they're unconditionally
available (though not necessarily a full pt_regs), which is what other code
assumes when WITH_ARGS is selected.
> Wouldn't it make sense then to define FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_ARGS as an
> extra bit to tell ftrace that we need the args, similarly to
> FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS ?
>
> If that can't happen or if we want to leave this up for later, the
> patch lgtm and I can squash it into my patch 5 in v2. ;)
I think that can't happen, and for now the above should be fine.
Thanks,
Mark.
