[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37f79351-a051-3fa9-7bfb-960fb2762e27@loongson.cn>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 20:48:02 +0800
From: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
To: oleg@...hat.com
Cc: andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
chenhuacai@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, kernel@...0n.name,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, mhiramat@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: uprobes: make
UPROBE_SWBP_INSN/UPROBE_XOLBP_INSN constant
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:38:06 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
...
> > > +arch_initcall(check_emit_break);
> > > +
> >
> > I wouldn't even bother with this, but whatever.
>
> Agreed, this looks a bit ugly. I did this only because I can not test
> this (hopefully trivial) patch and the maintainers didn't reply.
The LoongArch maintainer Huacai told me offline to reply this thread today.
> If LoongArch boots at least once with this change, this run-time check
> can be removed.
I will test it next Monday.
> And just in case... I didn't dare to make a more "generic" change, but
> perhaps KPROBE_BP_INSN and KPROBE_SSTEPBP_INSN should be redefined the
> same way for micro-optimization. In this case __emit_break() should be
> probably moved into arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h.
Yeah. I think so too.
Thanks,
Tiezhu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists