[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1197919042.23402.1.camel@brick>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:17:22 -0800
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
prasanna@...ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net, systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [-mm][PATCH 0/6] (yet another) kprobes x86 code unification
and boosters
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 17:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I developed a series of patches which unifies kprobes code on x86 and
> > introduces boosters on x86-64. These patches can be applied to
> > 2.6.24-rc4-mm1.
> >
> > The purpose of this patchset is unifying kprobes_[32|64].[c|h] to
> > kprobes.[c|h] for simplifying code maintenance.
> >
> > I know these patches are conflicting with Harvey's patch. We need to
> > solve that.
>
> your series fixes the 64-bit crash that i was seeing, so i've picked it
> up. Please work it out with Harvey which cleanups of him are not
> included yet.
>
I thought the jprobe_saved_sp looked fishy on X86_64 in my unified set
but I went bug-for-bug compatible I guess :-) If you look at my cleaned
up set this was one of the main source of remaining ifdefs.
Harvey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists