Messages in this thread | | | From | Mike Frysinger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 3.2 2/9] uprobes: handle breakpoint and signal step exception. | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:18:25 -0500 |
| |
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 04:02:32 Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > Can we use existing SET_IP() instead of set_instruction_pointer() ? > > Oleg had already commented about this in one his uprobes reviews. > > The GET_IP/SET_IP available in include/asm-generic/ptrace.h doesnt work > on all archs. Atleast it doesnt work on powerpc when I tried it.
so migrate the arches you need over to it.
> Also most archs define instruction_pointer(). So I thought (rather Peter > Zijlstra suggested the name set_instruction_pointer()) > set_instruction_pointer was a better bet than SET_IP. I
asm-generic/ptrace.h already has instruction_pointer_set()
> Also I dont see any usage for SET_IP/GET_IP.
i think you mean "users" here ? the usage should be fairly obvious. both macros are used by asm-generic/ptrace.h internally, but (currently) rarely defined by arches themselves (by design). the funcs that are based on these GET/SET helpers though do get used in many places.
simply grep arch/*/include/asm/ptrace.h
> May be we should have something like this in > include/asm-generic/ptrace.h > > #ifdef instruction_pointer > #define GET_IP(regs) (instruction_pointer(regs)) > #define set_instruction_pointer(regs, val) (instruction_pointer(regs) = > (val)) > #define SET_IP(regs, val) (set_instruction_pointer(regs,val)) > #endif >
what you propose here won't work on all arches which is the whole point of {G,S}ET_IP in the first place. i proposed a similar idea before and was shot down for exactly that reason. look at ia64 for an obvious example.
> or should we do away with GET_IP/SET_IP esp since there are no many > users?
no, the point is to migrate to asm-generic/ptrace.h, not away from it. -mike [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |