[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a89pm4um.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:41:53 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca, oohall@...il.com,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ast@...nel.org,
chris@...troguy.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
bsingharora@...il.com, anton@...ba.org,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, christophe.leroy@....fr, duwe@....de,
oss@...error.net, Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc: emulate_step tests for load/store instructions
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
> index fce05a3..5c5ae66 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -528,6 +528,8 @@ int __kprobes longjmp_break_handler(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> int __init arch_init_kprobes(void)
> {
> + test_emulate_step();
> +
I don't see any good reason why this is called from here.
So I'm inclined to just make test_emulate_step() a regular init call.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists