[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51628DF8.6030102@hitachi.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:29:28 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] uprobes/tracing: Kill the pointless local_save_flags/preempt_count
calls
(2013/04/06 0:01), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/05, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Masami, perhaps you can also answer the question I asked in 0/4
> marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136458107403835 ?
>
> Off-topic question... Why uprobe_perf_func() passes "addr = ip" to
> perf_trace_buf_submit() ? This just sets perf_sample_data->addr for
> PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR, do we really need this? and we already have
> perf_sample_data->ip initialized by perf.
>
> kprobe_perf_func() and kretprobe_perf_func() do the same.
>
Good catch! I guess that I might misunderstood that it was used
for sampling execution address. It should be replaced with (u64)0,
as perf_trace_##call() does.
> Once again, I am just curious and this is completely offtopic.
Thank you :)
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
--
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