From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753331AbbIROEd (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:04:33 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0064.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.64]:55417 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751866AbbIROEb (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:04:31 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1537:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3622:3865:3867:3868:4362:5007:6119:6261:7875:7903:10004:10400:10848:10967:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: sense38_a14f2f665f2b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1569 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:04:28 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Javi Merino Cc: "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "cw00.choi@samsung.com" , "edubezval@gmail.com" , Zhang Rui , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] devfreq_cooling: add trace information Message-ID: <20150918100428.0d2f71f5@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20150918135550.GA5283@e104805> References: <1441904972-5809-1-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> <1441904972-5809-5-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> <20150910131928.3c88fe28@gandalf.local.home> <20150918135550.GA5283@e104805> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.12.0 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:55:51 +0100 Javi Merino wrote: > > A tracepoint does some whacky things, and gcc may not optimize this. > > I've compared the generated assembly on arm, arm64 and x86_64 and both > options generate exactly the same code. Thanks for checking. I was just curious, and I'm wary about trusting gcc to optimize correctly ;-) -- Steve