|
From: kernelnewbies-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:kernelnewbies-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Kenneth Adam Miller Well I think that a function or system call semantics replacement facility would be useful to unit testers everywhere. It would be benign of course, requiring that the unit testing framework request of the kernel that it replace the kernel
facilities specified prior to the test, and automatically replace them afterward. So, this isn't anything akin to doing anything malicious, it requires user cooperation in order to hook. It's not like something forcibly done. I'm thinking of an intel pin for
kernel level code. Kenneth, Please refrain from top posting. 8^) I was just thinking you might be able to leverage that gcc profiling mcount() function trick that ftrace uses. I don’t understand that well enough to say whether it would be applicable for what you want to do, but it would be something you could look into. You should check out ftrace in any case if you are interested in this kind of thing. It’s a way cool facility and comes already enabled on many distros. Jeff Haran On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:26:40PM -0500, Kenneth Adam Miller wrote: |
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
