[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240629133747.GA4504@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:38:49 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: uprobes: make
UPROBE_SWBP_INSN/UPROBE_XOLBP_INSN constant
On 06/29, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>
> 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.
Thanks!
> > 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.
OK... should I send v2? Or another change which does this on top of this
patch? Or will you do it yourself?
>
> Thanks,
> Tiezhu
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists