[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111014173111.GB8521@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:01:11 +0530
From: Maneesh Soni <manesoni@...co.com>
To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Cc: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, ananth@...ibm.com, kamensky@...co.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS Kprobes: Support branch instructions probing
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 07:07:14PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:28:51AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
>
> > Where is the handling for:
> >
> > case cop1_op:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_CAVIUM_OCTEON
> > case lwc2_op: /* This is bbit0 on Octeon */
> > case ldc2_op: /* This is bbit032 on Octeon */
> > case swc2_op: /* This is bbit1 on Octeon */
> > case sdc2_op: /* This is bbit132 on Octeon */
> > #endif
> >
> > These are all defined in insn_has_delayslot() but not here.
>
> Which is a wonderful demonstration for why duplicating such a large
> function from branch.c was a baaad thing to do.
>
> Maneesh, can you refactor the code to share everything that was copied
> from __compute_return_epc() can be shared with kprobes? Idealy make
> everything a two part series, first one patch to refactor branch.c and
> the 2nd patch to deal with kprobes.
>
Sure.. the branch likely instructions are not make it look good but
still do it in the next version.
Thanks for the comments.
Regards,
Maneesh
--
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