Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:16:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:16:08 -0400 Received: from almesberger.net ([63.105.73.239]:60166 "EHLO host.almesberger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:16:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:22:00 -0300 From: Werner Almesberger To: "Vamsi Krishna S ." Cc: Richard J Moore , Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, S Vamsikrishna Subject: Re: 2.4 Ready list - Kernel Hooks Message-ID: <20021024142200.L1421@almesberger.net> References: <20021023165009.I1421@almesberger.net> <20021024130835.A30737@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021024130835.A30737@in.ibm.com>; from vamsi@in.ibm.com on Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:08:35PM +0530 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 944 Lines: 25 Vamsi Krishna S . wrote: > So, hooks are designed, placed at well thought-out locations. > Probes OTOH are mostly ad-hoc. Yes, my point was that the same (general) mechanism should be suitable for both types of use. However, ... >> [kd]probes. I haven't looked at that part yet. Do you have the >> infrastructure for this ? >> > No, returning from caller will be much harder with [kd]probes. ... this seems to kill my grand unified hook/probe theory :-( - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/