[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, 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


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-12 16:07    [W:0.042 / U:21.112 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site