[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141020145321.0af7a4dd@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:53:21 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kprobes: introduce ARCH_HANDLES_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:55:30 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
> Hmm, this looks a bit not straight. Maybe we'd better introduce a local
> check_ftrace_location() function which always returns 0 if
> CONFIG_ARCH_HANDLES_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE(with a comment! :)) as below.
>
> int check_ftrace_location(kp)
> {
> unsigned long ftrace_address;
>
> /* If an architecture handles kprobes on ftrace, we don't check it */
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HANDLES_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE))
> return 0;
>
> ...
> }
We can also just make that function weak, and let the archs override
the default behavior?
-- Steve
--
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