Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:56:39 -0500 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches |
| |
Hi Harvey,
Harvey Harrison wrote: > On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 18:14 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> Hi Harvey, >> >> Harvey Harrison wrote: >>> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>>> Hi Harvey, >>>> Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important >>>> to you? We can discuss about it. >>> I've already ported it and sent it to you. It's not really important to >>> me I just think my fine-grained patches may be of some use to see where >>> the differences between X86_32/64 ended up being. Your patches end up >>> being just about entirely removal of ifdefs when rebased onto my >>> patches, so it's at least a good secondary check of your patches even >>> if mine don't go in. Your patches end up being much smaller against >>> my version too. >> OK, I'll review that. >> >>> I like my version slightly better because the remaining ifdefs (wrmsr, >>> etc) and others could be done in a few more small patches that are more >>> easily reviewable than your large final unification patch. >> I agreed that your patches are including some goodness. >> So let us merge it into one. >> >> > > OK, I'll take the last bits of your patches 5/6 that aren't already > cleaned up and send out a unified patchset for you to add your > acked/signed off by/reviewed by as appropriate.
Sure, I'll review it. It is very helpful to me. Please Cc: or To: the parsons who are listed in this mail. Jim, if you can review the fixes which you've suggested, could you give him your signed-off?
> > These are: > > -add stack_addr() macro > -I prefer the table defintion macros in mine as it avoids the need to > cast the pointer passed to test_bit, but if you want them > to be u32 as in your patch, I can change it.
please do so. we'd like to reduce ifdefs as less as possible:-)
> -wrmsr/wrmsrl - use wrmsr() for both > -call is_IF_modifier with p->ainsn.insn in both > -check casting of jprobe_saved_sp, I get some compile warnings currently > with pointer comparisons to signed/unsigned types.
Could you also add below? - fix some comments (it clarifies the meanings of the code) - add fix_riprel(). this useful to reduce ifdefs. - expand reenter_kprobe(). I think it treat above two blocks. - reassignment of regs->ip in kprobe_handler can be unified to "regs->ip = (unsigned long)addr;"
> > That will eliminate nearly all of the remaining ifdefs in my version, > let me work through this and I'll send out a set for review. > > CHeers, > > Harvey > >
Best Regards,
-- Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
| |