[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59F9280A.70202@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:48:58 +0800
From: zhouchengming <zhouchengming1@...wei.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<hpa@...or.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <bp@...e.de>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <jkosina@...e.cz>, <mjurczyk@...gle.com>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes, x86/alternatives: use text_mutex to protect
smp_alt_modules
On 2017/11/1 5:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:03:23 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu<mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>>> static LIST_HEAD(smp_alt_modules);
>>> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(smp_alt);
>>> -static bool uniproc_patched = false; /* protected by smp_alt */
>>> +static bool uniproc_patched = false; /* protected by text_mutex */
> We should also add a comment somewhere by the text_mutex that it is
> protecting this on x86.
Good, I will send a patch-v2 adding this comment.
Thanks!
> -- Steve
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists