![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Abhishek Sagar wrote: > the entry handler is called with the appropriate return instance. I > haven't put any explicit "match" test here for ri. The reason is that > the correct ri would be passed to both the entry and return handlers > as trampoline_handler() explicitly matches them to the correct task. > Note that all pending return instances of a function are chained in > LIFO order. S the entry-handler which gets called last, should have > its return handler called first (in case of multiple pending return > instances). > No, eventhough return instances are chained in an order, order of execution of return handler entirely depends on which process returns first(some process may return from 2 line of the function and some process may return from last line of the function). So entry_handler() which gets executed last doesn't guarantee that its return handler will be executed first(because it took a lot time to return). So only thing to match the entry_handler() with its return_handler() is return probe instance(ri)'s address, which user has to take care explicitly (Hence I feel sol a) would be nice). Thanks Srinivasa DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-11-14 11:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||