Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 May 2010 19:34:33 +0530 | From | Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Uprobes v3 |
| |
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 03:39:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 18:57 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > > Now, as long as we have the housekeeping code to handle the > > possibility of a thread hitting the said breakpoint when its being > > removed, is it safe to assume atomicity for replacing one byte of > > possibly a longer instruction? > > Dunno I'm not a hardware guy, but the issue is so simple to side-step > I'm not sure why you're arguing for relying on these special semantics.
Yes we know what to do, but I am just trying to get clarity if its possible at all, since Mathieu was pretty sure that the hoops aren't necessary...
Ananth
| |