On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 09:22:21AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: > Hi, Steven, > > On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:30 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > [...] > > The only problem with this approach is what happens if the user changes > > the enabled in between these two calls. This would make ftrace > > inconsistent. > > > > I have a patch from the -rt tree that handles what you want. It is > > attached below. Not sure how well it will apply to mainline. > > > > I really need to go through the rt patch set and start submitting a bunch > > of clean-up/fixes to mainline. We've been meaning to do it, just have been > > distracted :-( > > Your version is better in general sense. Thank you very much! > > But in this specific situation of kexec/kjump. The execution environment > is that other CPUs are disabled, local irq is disabled, and it is not > permitted to switch to other process. But it is safe and sufficient to > use non-locked version here. > > So to satisfy both demands, I think it is better to provide both > version, locked and non-locked. What do you think about that? > Huang, So you want to use a non-locked version from optimization point of view? So that we don't end up taking and release a lock? Thanks Vivek
