[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273611704.1810.136.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 23:01:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/11] Uprobes Implementation
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 16:57 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:32:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > [...]
> > Right so what I've suggested several times it to simply call the same
> > handler in both contexts. If it returns -EFAULT, set TIF_UPROBE or
> > whatever and try again from task context.
>
> That could work, but random partial execution & restart of the handler
> will make it tricky to write a single handler that reliably produces
> results. It would likely need a flag to indicate that it failed
> previously so as to throw away partial results.
Or it shouldn't leave half-assed state around to begin with.
--
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