[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52747280.7040708@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 23:33:20 -0400
From: David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
"Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@...aro.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/13] uprobes: add arch write opcode hook
On 10/29/13 15:59, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> Yes, yes, sorry for confusion. What I actually tried to suggest is
>> something like the trivial patch below.
>>
>> Then arm can do:
>>
>> uprobe_opcode_t arch_uprobe_swbp_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe)
>> {
>> return __opcode_to_mem_arm(auprobe->bpinsn);
>> }
>>
>> No?
>>
>>> I notice there don't seem to be any alternative set_swbp functions
>>> in the (rc6) kernel tree
>>
>> Yes... I think we should simply make it "static". And set_orig_insn()
>> too.
>
> Or. arm can actually reimplement set_swbp(). This doesn't mean the
> duplication of write_opcode() code, we can simply export this helper.
>
That actually looks to me like the cleanest approach. I have changed
the static write_opcode() to a global uprobe_write_opcode(), and now
call it from an arm set_swbp().
Please do *not* make set_swbp() (and set_orig_insn()) static's. It
looks like we now have a use for at least one of them.
Thanks,
-dl
--
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