[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140401144447.GB18503@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:44:47 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Jonathan Lebon <jlebon@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] uprobes/x86: Introduce uprobe_xol_ops and
arch_uprobe->ops
On 04/01, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2014/04/01 4:44), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > +
> > +static struct uprobe_xol_ops defaule_xop_ops = {
> > + .pre_xol = default_pre_xol_op,
> > + .post_xol = default_post_xol_op,
>
> If there is no ops->emulate, I think it should not be defined now.
> You can add it when you really need it. :)
Yes, but the next patch will need it. I do not really mind, but if you
do not object I'd prefer to define it in this patch (note that it also
changes skip_sstep() to check ops->emulate even if it has no users yet).
This way the next change will be a little bit simpler.
In the longer term we will (probably) need ops->abort as well, but currently
we can assume handle_riprel_post_xol() in arch_uprobe_abort_xol() can do
nothing wrong even if ->ops != &defaule_xol_ops (one of the reasons for 3/7).
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