linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] [MIPS] lockdep: add STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and enable LOCKDE

To: vagabon.xyz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [MIPS] lockdep: add STACKTRACE_SUPPORT and enable LOCKDEP_SUPPORT
From: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:11:02 +0900 (JST)
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, mingo@redhat.com
In-reply-to: <45194E14.10203@innova-card.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20060926.234401.08077257.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <45194E14.10203@innova-card.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:58:12 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > +static inline void
> > +save_raw_context_stack(struct stack_trace *trace, unsigned int skip,
> > +                  unsigned long reg29)
> > +{
> [snip]
> > +
> > +static inline struct pt_regs *
> > +save_context_stack(struct stack_trace *trace, unsigned int skip,
> > +              struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +   unsigned long sp = regs->regs[29];
> 
> Any reasons why marking these 2 functions as inlined ? IMHO gcc is now
> good enough for this decision.

Indeed.  I just made them inlined because I used i386's stacktrace.c
as a template :-)

---
Atsushi Nemoto

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>