Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:19:19 +0900 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: Re: [PATCH ftrace/core v3 2/3] ftrace, kprobes: Support IPMODIFY flag to find IP modify conflict |
| |
(2014/07/18 22:51), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:09:07 +0900 > Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> wrote: > > >>> "The ops can modify the IP register. This can only be set along with >>> SAVE_REGS. If another ops is already registered for any of the >>> functions that this ops will be registered for, then this ops will fail >>> to register." >> >> Not only register, but also set_filter_ip ;) >> "...will fail to register or set_filter_ip." > > Sure. > > >>>> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c >>>> index 3214289..e52d86f 100644 >>>> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c >>>> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c >>> >>> I think this should be split into two patches. One that adds the ftrace >>> infrastructure, and the other that adds the kprobes user of the >>> IPMODIFY flag. >> >> Hmm, I thought that it was natural to introduce new feature and its user >> together, so that we could use git-bisect safely. > > It should still be bisect friendly. That is, the feature is added > before the user, not the user before the feature ;-)
Ah, I see.
> I know some people like the feature and user in one patch, but for me, > when the user is in a different sub system (here it's kprobes) from the > infrastructure that is changing (ftrace), I prefer separate patches. > > The user patch shows me where the users are. When they are one patch, I > tend to have them get lost.
OK, then I'll decouple it :)
Thanks!
-- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
| |