On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 12:31:12PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote:
> I think if we use something like __mips_notrace here, we may get lots of
> __ARCH_notraces here too, 'Cause some other platforms(at least, as I
> know, Microblaze will do it too) may also need to add one here, it will
> become:
>
> __mips_notrace __ARCH1_notrace __ARCH2_notrace .... foo() {...}
>
> A little ugly ;)
Yeah :)
I thought Mips would be the only one to do that.
> and If a new platform need it's __ARCH_notrace, they need to touch the
> common part of ftrace, more side-effects!
>
> but with __arch_notrace, the archs only need to touch it's own part,
> Although there is a side-effect as you mentioned above ;)
>
> So, what should we do?
>
> Regards,
> Wu Zhangjin
>
Why not __time ?
As it's normal that such few functions that are used to read the timecounter
have fair chances to be __no_trace on archs like MIPS. Interested
archs would just need to override a default stub __time.
