[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220322214629.2bf40306e3beba23d88d509f@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:46:29 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
rostedt@...dmis.org, ast@...nel.org, hjl.tools@...il.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, rppt@...nel.org,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 13:17:18 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 02:31:36PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> > > But I still think it's fairly terrible to get a (flawed) carbon copy of
> > > the kretprobe code.
> >
> > Indeed. I would like to replace the trampoline code of kretprobe with
> > rethook, eventually. There is no reason why we keep the clone.
> > (But I need more arch maintainers help for that, there are too many
> > archs implemented kretprobes)
>
> CONFIG_KPROBE_ON_RETHOOK - and then implement archs one by one?
Sounds good! Maybe we will see different data structure fields
which depends on that config, but those are internal fields, so
user will not access it.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists