[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345716378.29170.4.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:06:18 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>, ananth@...ibm.com,
ppcdev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
oleg@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc: Uprobes port to powerpc
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 11:02 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
>
> insn is updated/accessed in the arch independent code. Size of
> uprobe_opcode_t could be different for different archs.
> uprobe_opcode_t
> represents the size of the smallest breakpoint instruction for an
> arch.
>
> Hence u8 works out the best. I know we could still use uprobe_opcode_t
> and achieve the same. In which case, we would have to interpret
> MAX_UINSN_BYTES differently. Do you see any advantages of using
> uprobe_opcode_t instead of u8 across archs?
But don't you actively rely on the fact that on powerpc, unlike x86, you
-can- atomically replace an instruction with a single 32-bit store ?
If you don't you should consider it, and that makes defining this as a
u8 array non-sensical (as is using memcpy)
Ben.
--
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