On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 14:51:57 -0800
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Honestly, I did it this way because it was the simplest way to do it.
>
> So the thing is, I already dislike the whole setup, and your patch
> just makes it worse.
>
> And
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Honestly, I did it this way because it was the simplest way to do it.
So the thing is, I already dislike the whole setup, and your patch
just makes it worse.
And part of the problem is that there is *already* too many stupid
layers of in
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:35:10 -0800
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > +.macro create_frame parent rip
> > +#ifdef CC_USING_FENTRY
> > + pushq \parent
> > + pushq %rbp
> > + movq %rsp, %rbp
>
> This is a very strange frame.
>
> W
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> +.macro create_frame parent rip
> +#ifdef CC_USING_FENTRY
> + pushq \parent
> + pushq %rbp
> + movq %rsp, %rbp
This is a very strange frame.
Why do you do the "pushq \parent" at all? Why isn't this just a *real*
frame and
Linus,
While testing function triggers, I noticed that the stack trace trigger
for functions was missing the function that caused the trigger as
well as the parent function that called the triggered function. I use
this feature a lot and never noticed this before. Then I realized that
the differe
5 matches
Mail list logo
