Message-ID: <47670CB7.5060303@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:56:39 -0500
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
CC:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	srinivasa@...ibm.com,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <hiramatu@....hitachi.co.jp>,
	Rusty Lynch <rusty.lynch@...el.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Keshavamurthy Anil S <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>
Subject: Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches

Hi Harvey,

Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 18:14 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Hi Harvey,
>>
>> Harvey Harrison wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>> Hi Harvey,
>>>> Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important
>>>> to you? We can discuss about it.
>>> I've already ported it and sent it to you.  It's not really important to
>>> me I just think my fine-grained patches may be of some use to see where
>>> the differences between X86_32/64 ended up being.  Your patches end up
>>> being just about entirely removal of ifdefs when rebased onto my
>>> patches, so it's at least a good secondary check of your patches even
>>> if mine don't go in.  Your patches end up being much smaller against
>>> my version too.
>> OK, I'll review that.
>>
>>> I like my version slightly better because the remaining ifdefs (wrmsr,
>>> etc) and others could be done in a few more small patches that are more
>>> easily reviewable than your large final unification patch.
>> I agreed that your patches are including some goodness.
>> So let us merge it into one.
>>
>>
> 
> OK, I'll take the last bits of your patches 5/6 that aren't already
> cleaned up and send out a unified patchset for you to add your
> acked/signed off by/reviewed by as appropriate.

Sure, I'll review it. It is very helpful to me.
Please Cc: or To: the parsons who are listed in this mail.
Jim, if you can review the fixes which you've suggested,
could you give him your signed-off?

> 
> These are:
> 
> -add stack_addr() macro
> -I prefer the table defintion macros in mine as it avoids the need to
> cast the pointer passed to test_bit, but if you want them
> to be u32 as in your patch, I can change it.

 please do so. we'd like to reduce ifdefs as less as possible:-)

> -wrmsr/wrmsrl - use wrmsr() for both
> -call is_IF_modifier with p->ainsn.insn in both
> -check casting of jprobe_saved_sp, I get some compile warnings currently
> with pointer comparisons to signed/unsigned types.

Could you also add below?
- fix some comments (it clarifies the meanings of the code)
- add fix_riprel(). this useful to reduce ifdefs.
- expand reenter_kprobe(). I think it treat above two blocks.
- reassignment of regs->ip in kprobe_handler can be unified
  to "regs->ip = (unsigned long)addr;"

> 
> That will eliminate nearly all of the remaining ifdefs in my version,
> let me work through this and I'll send out a set for review.
> 
> CHeers,
> 
> Harvey
> 
> 

Best Regards,


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com

--
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