[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273671560.1626.114.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 15:39:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: ananth@...ibm.com
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Uprobes v3
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 18:57 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> Now, as long as we have the housekeeping code to handle the
> possibility of a thread hitting the said breakpoint when its being
> removed, is it safe to assume atomicity for replacing one byte of
> possibly a longer instruction?
Dunno I'm not a hardware guy, but the issue is so simple to side-step
I'm not sure why you're arguing for relying on these special semantics.
--
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