[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170928072541.daf7oqj6tkq4vmac@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:25:41 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v3 6/7] kprobes/x86: Remove disable_irq from
ftrace-based/optimized kprobe
* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> Actually kprobes doesn't need to disable irq if it is
> called from ftrace/jump trampoline code because
> Documentation/kprobes.txt says
>
> -----
> Probe handlers are run with preemption disabled. Depending on the
> architecture and optimization state, handlers may also run with
> interrupts disabled (e.g., kretprobe handlers and optimized kprobe
> handlers run without interrupt disabled on x86/x86-64).
> -----
>
> So let's remove irq disabling from those handlers.
> - local_irq_save(flags);
The title is talking about disable_irq():
kprobes/x86: Remove disable_irq from ftrace-based/optimized kprobe
... but the patch is actually using local_irq_save(), which is an entirely
different thing! You probably wanted to say:
kprobes/x86: Remove irq disabling from ftrace-based/optimized kprobes
Also note the plural of 'kprobes' when we refer to them as a generic thing.
I fixed the title, but _please_ read changelogs more carefully before sending
them.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists