Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: ftraced and suspend to ram | Date | Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:39:34 +0200 |
| |
On Friday, 22 of August 2008, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 09:23:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The code in question is the ftraced() function in > > > > > > kernel/trace/ftrace.c > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I'll have a look in a while. > > > > > > > > Can you try the appended patch, please? > > > > > > makes sense - i've applied it to tip/tracing/urgent, see the tidied up > > > commit below. > > > > > > It should be no big issue not being able to trace across suspend+resume > > > - and that restriction will go away with Steve's build-time based mcount > > > patching mechanism in v2.6.28. > > > > Patch looks okay to me, but I'm not sure if another issue is not > > hiding under it. Did anyone actually test ftrace + suspend after > > applying this? > > I just tested this patch - it didn't help ;( > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > index 49f4c3f..02e41b2 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > #include <linux/ctype.h> > #include <linux/hash.h> > #include <linux/list.h> > +#include <linux/freezer.h> > > #include <asm/ftrace.h>
This is needed to fix compilation, sorry for the omission.
Still, did you test ftrace + suspend with the original patch and your fix applied and if you did, then what happend?
Rafael
| |