On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:08:19PM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:08:07AM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >>> +void perf_arch_save_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long ip, int skip) > >> > >> Hmm, why would you call it 'save_regs' ? > >> It seems that this function is just for fixing registers > >> instead of saving it into somewhere... > >> > >> Thank you, > > > > > > Hmm, save_regs() describes what it does: you pass > > a pt_regs and it saves registers inside. But it > > has also a kind of fixup thing as it also rewinds. > > Ah, I see. so this saves current register values > into pt_regs. :) > > > > > I'm not sure using a fixup thing for the naming > > is correct as we are not starting with initial > > regs passed to the function (just a raw buffer). > > > > What about perf_save_caller_regs() ? > > > > Hmm, I think, it might be better perf_get_caller_regs() > or something like that (fetch ?). perf_fetch_caller_regs() looks fine. I'll update my patch accordingly, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
