[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120614173919.GA7959@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:39:19 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] uprobes: don't use loff_t for the valid virtual
address
On 06/14, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:51:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > loff_t looks confusing when it is used for the virtual address.
> > Change map_info and install_breakpoint/remove_breakpoint paths
> > to use "unsigned long".
> >
> > The patch doesn't change vma_address(), it can't return "long"
> > because it is used to verify the mapping. But probably this
> > needs some cleanups too.
>
> Oleg,
>
> As you mentioned in another email, this conflicts with my [1/2]
> preparatory patch for the powerpc port.
Yes, sorry. I didn't notice it was already applied.
As I said, I do not really agree with this change,
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() shouldn't use addr/vaddr.
However this is minor, we can change this later. And this code needs
more changes anyway.
I'll rebase this series on top of your "1/2" and resend.
> Do you think it just makes sense
> to make the arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() prototype change to take vaddr as
> part of this set itself?
Yes, Anton already did the necessary fixup (thanks Anton ;)
Oleg.
--
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