[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5445BC23.6080207@hitachi.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:51:31 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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
(2014/10/21 3:53), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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?
Ah, that will be simpler and we don't need new Kconfig.
Thank you!
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research 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