On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:03 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
Perfect then!
> > 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.
Yep
