[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/10] Uprobes v3
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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-12 15:41    [W:0.047 / U:33.348 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site