Message-ID: <5559D627.7080201@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:38:07 +0530
From: Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
        Anton Arapov <arapov@gmail.com>, David Long <dave.long@linaro.org>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Jan Willeke <willeke@de.ibm.com>, Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>,
        Mark Wielaard <mjw@redhat.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] uprobes/x86: Introduce arch_uretprobe_is_alive()
References: <20150504124914.GA22512@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150504124914.GA22512@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 679
Lines: 22

Hi Oleg,

On Monday 04 May 2015 06:19 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> +bool __weak arch_uretprobe_is_alive(struct arch_uretprobe *auret, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> +	return true;
> +}

IIUC, then this function should return false when both auret and regs 
are corresponding to same retprobe, else we need to return true, right?

If that is the case, then should n't following work for all the cases:

return sp != auret->sp;

~Pratyush

--
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/