On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 08:16:20AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:58:25 +0000 > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Architectures may need to perform special initialization of ftrace > > callsites, and today they do so by special-casing ftrace_make_nop() when > > the expected branch address is MCOUNT_ADDR. In some cases (e.g. for > > patchable-function-entry), we don't have an mcount-like symbol and don't > > want a synthetic MCOUNT_ADDR, but we may need to perform some > > initialization of callsites. > > > > To make it possible to separate initialization from runtime > > modification, and to handle cases without an mcount-like symbol, this > > patch adds an optional ftrace_init_nop() function that architectures can > > implement, which does not pass a branch address. > > > > Where an architecture does not provide ftrace_init_nop(), we will fall > > back to the existing behaviour of calling ftrace_make_nop() with > > MCOUNT_ADDR. > > > > At the same time, ftrace_code_disable() is renamed to > > ftrace_nop_initialize() to make it clearer that it is intended to > > intialize a callsite into a disabled state, and is not for disabling a > > callsite that has been runtime enabled. The kerneldoc description of rec > > arguments is updated to cover non-mcount callsites. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! Just to check, are you happy if this were to go via the arm64 tree with the rest of the patches? Mark.
