[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190507155817.2d08d0eb@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 15:58:17 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Allow breakpoints to emulate call
functions
On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:49:25 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > New version:
> >
> > x86_64: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions
> >
> > In order to allow breakpoints to emulate call functions, they need to push
>
> Sorry to keep nitpicking, but "call functions" -> "function calls" would
> sound more accurate to me (in both subject and description).
I disagree ;-)
Matters how you look at it. I look at it as emulating the "call"
function, not a function call. Like emulating an "addl" function, or a
"jmp" function.
See?
To remove the ambiguity, I could replace "function" with "instruction".
>
> Otherwise it looks good.
Thanks!
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists