On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 5:44 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:40:54 -0400 > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Maybe we can add a ftrace_partial_regs(fregs) that returns a > > partially filled pt_regs, and the caller that uses this obviously knows > > its partial (as it's in the name). But this doesn't quite help out arm64 > > because unlike x86, struct ftrace_regs does not contain an address > > compatibility with pt_regs fields. It would need to do a copy. > > > > ftrace_partial_regs(fregs, ®s) ? > > Well, both would be pointers so you wouldn't need the "&", but it was > to stress that it would be copying one to the other. > > void ftrace_partial_regs(const struct ftrace_regs *fregs, struct pt_regs regs); Copy works, but why did you pick a different layout? Why not to use pt_regs ? if save of flags is slow, just skip that part and whatever else that is slow. You don't even need to zero out unsaved fields. Just ask the caller to zero out pt_regs before hand. Most users have per-cpu pt_regs that is being reused. So there will be one zero-out in the beginning and every partial save of regs will be fast. Then there won't be any need for copy-converter from ftrace_regs to pt_regs. Maybe too much churn at this point. copy is fine.
