On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:06 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:14:36AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > Add __ftrace_enabled_save/restore, used to disable ftrace for a
> > while. Now, this is used by kexec jump, which need a version without
> > lock, for general situation, a locked version should be used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang at intel.com>
> >
> > ---
> > include/linux/ftrace.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> >
> > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > @@ -98,6 +98,27 @@ static inline void tracer_disable(void)
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > +/* Ftrace disable/restore without lock. Some synchronization mechanism
> > + * must be used to prevent ftrace_enabled to be changed between
> > + * disable/restore. */
> > +static inline int __ftrace_enabled_save(void)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE
> > + int saved_ftrace_enabled = ftrace_enabled;
> > + ftrace_enabled = 0;
> > + return saved_ftrace_enabled;
> > +#else
> > + return 0;
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void __ftrace_enabled_restore(int enabled)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE
> > + ftrace_enabled = enabled;
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
> > /* TODO: need to fix this for ARM */
> > # define CALLER_ADDR0 ((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0))
>
> I guess steven would like to see a patch which introduces both locked
> and lockless versions and with a very good comment explaining in what
> kind of unusual situation one can use the lockless version.
Have sent a locked version to Steven. And, there are some comments for
non-locked version, __ftrace_enabled_save() in above patch. What do you
think about it?
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
