lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific arch_uprobe_*_step
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:37:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/30, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:37:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Ananth, Sebastian, what if we start with the patch below? Then
> > > we can change arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c to use the static
> > > uprobe_*_step() helpers from the 2nd patch.
> >
> > In principle I am fine with the change.
>
> OK, good.
>
> > > If we agree this code should be per-arch, then why do need other
> > > hooks? This is just ugly, we already have arch_pre/post_xol.
> > >
> > > The only problem is the pending powerpc patches, the change below
> > > obviously breaks them. Were they already applied? If not, then
> > > probably Ananth can do v6 on top of the patch below ;) The necessary
> > > fixup is trivial.
> >
> > They are under review.
>
> OK, I understand that v6 can confuse the maintainer and complicate the
> merging process, please forget about v6.
>
> And yes, this is really minor problem, still it would be nice to avoid
> the unnecessary hooks/complications...
>
> So. We can add "weak arch_uprobe" hooks, fix x86, and after powerpc is
> merged change both powerpc and x86 in one patch (remove "weak" hooks
> and move enable/disable into arch_pre/post_xol).
>
> Or. We can apply the patch I sent right now, you can fix powerpc later,
> when it is merged. This all is for 3.7 anyway, and fixup is trivial.
>
> I agree either way. Which way do you prefer?

I prefer fixing both together later, just so nothing breaks while intial
testing, etc.

Ananth



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-30 17:41    [W:0.092 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site