[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1199833324.6424.12.camel@brick>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:02:04 -0800
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hskinnemoen@...el.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] kprobes: Introduce is_kprobe_fault()
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:45 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Harvey Harrison writes:
>
> > Use a central is_kprobe_fault() inline in kprobes.h to remove all
> > of the arch-dependant, practically identical implementations in
> > avr32, ia64, powerpc, s390, sparc64, and x86.
>
> I don't like the name "is_kprobe_fault" since the function actually
> handles the fault - i.e. it does more than just tell the caller
> whether this is a kprobes fault. Something like
> "handle_kprobes_fault" or "maybe_handle_kprobes_fault" would be
> better IMO.
Good point, I chose the name based simply on the usage pattern found
in all the callers. Of your suggestions I like handle_kprobes_fault
better.
How about check_kprobes_fault? That seems to cover what you were
getting at with maybe_handle_kprobes_fault but is shorter. That
also fits better with the !CONFIG_KPROBES case.
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