Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] ftrace: to kill a daemon (small updates)
From: Gregory Haskins
Date: Fri Aug 15 2008 - 07:25:29 EST
(From the original mail)
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Along came Gregory Haskins, who was bickering about having ftrace enabled
on a production -rt kernel. I told him the reasons that this would be bad
and then he started thinking out loud, and suggesting wild ideas, like
patching gcc!
^^^^^^^^^^
Ingo Molnar wrote:
Eventually gcc should be extended to provide a separate section for
instrumentation patch sites, instead of us having to disassemble the
object code.
:)
I obviously agree with this, so +1
Though, tbh, at the time I suggested it I didn't think of Steve's idea
to post-process which was quite clever. But I do agree that having gcc
do it will probably save some build time since it will probably be
trivial for it to do this when already processing -pg. It would have the
added benefit of letting the arch specific toolchain do the arch
specific work (though I think Steve's solution capitalizes on the
toolchain extensively as it is).
The biggest downside is that we would have an external dependency on gcc
for the feature, but I guess the kernel already has some of those anyway
(e.g. the stack overflow guard feature, etc). We could always fall back
on Steve's post-processing if the toolchain lacks the feature.
-Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature