[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120815165931.GA10059@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:59:31 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, michael@...erman.id.au,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, peterz@...radead.org,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc: Uprobes port to powerpc
On 07/26, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
>
> This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
I am just curious why this series was ignored by powerpc maintainers...
Of course I can not review this code, I know nothing about powerpc,
but the patches look simple/straightforward.
Paul, Benjamin?
Just one question... Shouldn't arch_uprobe_pre_xol() forbid to probe
UPROBE_SWBP_INSN (at least) ?
(I assume that emulate_step() can't handle this case but of course I
do not understand arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c)
Note that uprobe_pre_sstep_notifier() sets utask->state = UTASK_BP_HIT
without any checks. This doesn't look right if it was UTASK_SSTEP...
But again, I do not know what powepc will actually do if we try to
single-step over UPROBE_SWBP_INSN.
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