On 2017/03/10 10:45AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:38:53 +1100
Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:04:15 +1100
Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:

kernel/trace/ftrace.c more obvious.  

quoted

I don't know if it's really worth keeping the names the same across
arches, especially as we already have:

  arch/arm64/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
  arch/arm/kernel/entry-ftrace.S
  arch/blackfin/kernel/ftrace-entry.S
  arch/metag/kernel/ftrace_stub.S

But we can rename it if you feel strongly about it.  

Hmm, perhaps "entry-ftrace.S" would be the better name. I never liked
the "mcount.S" name.  

Except what does the "entry" part mean?

Traditionally entry.S has been for the code that "enters" the kernel,
ie. from userspace or elsewhere. But that's not the case with any of the
ftrace code, it's kernel code called from the kernel. So using "entry"
is a bit wrong IMHO.

So if we drop that we're left with ftrace.S - which seems perfect to me.

Yeah, I agree. But then there's the problem that ftrace.c and ftrace.S
will get the same ftrace.o. Maybe make it ftrace-hook.S ?

I've avoided that issue by naming the files ftrace_32.S and ftrace_64.S 
(which gets further split up).

Thanks,
Naveen