On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 12:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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.
>
Good pointer, will apply it ;)
Regards,
Wu Zhangjin
