Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 13:56:49 -0800
> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> This reverts commit 089c02ae2771a14af2928c59c56abfb9b885a8d7.
>
> I rather not revert this.
>
> If user space can decided between various version of preemption, then the
> trace should reflect that. At least state what the preemption model was when
> a trace started, or currently is.
>
Oh absolutely. As I mention in the cover at least these three patches
would be back:
089c02ae2771 ("ftrace: Use preemption model accessors for trace header printout")
cfe43f478b79 ("preempt/dynamic: Introduce preemption model accessors")
5693fa74f98a ("kcsan: Use preemption model accessors")
The intent was (which I didn't do for the RFC), to do the reverts as cleanly
as possible, do the changes for the series and then bring these patches back
with appropriate modifications.
> That is, the model may not be "static" per boot. Anyway, the real change here should be:
Yeah, I intended to do something like that.
Or would you prefer these not be reverted (and reapplied) at all -- just fixed
as you describe here?
> Then this way we can decided to make it runtime dynamic, we don't need to
> fiddle with the tracing code again.
Yeah, that makes sense.
--
ankur
