Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764949AbXLQWHb (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:07:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765465AbXLQWG5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:06:57 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.190]:29554 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935647AbXLQWGz (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:06:55 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=WA6g9e3XW+diO7FSNNdth7jmpd1rXqqx0kPL4Ci+MLylfsDjCyoWjkFr+IsbsdEifQom4J8cXZMIn5gQHQxIx56G+WZklTZqcaGKlE2Q2q4D+Zu/vHsdJHPFZjzvMlPOAg1hdIFaj7UkuTlVIDMmFFd5Gmp+pZDr0T472QZZ2dk= Subject: Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches From: Harvey Harrison To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Srikar Dronamraju , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Maneesh Soni , srinivasa@in.ibm.com, Jim Keniston , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Masami Hiramatsu , Rusty Lynch , Masami Hiramatsu , Keshavamurthy Anil S In-Reply-To: <4766EFA8.9070907@redhat.com> References: <1197708350.898.87.camel@brick> <20071215085015.GA9720@elte.hu> <1197709442.898.97.camel@brick> <20071215131204.GE9720@elte.hu> <20071217142235.GA21379@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1197919234.23402.5.camel@brick> <4766E9FC.7050101@redhat.com> <1197927385.23402.41.camel@brick> <4766EFA8.9070907@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:00:23 -0800 Message-Id: <1197928823.23402.108.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1694 Lines: 42 On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Hi Harvey, > Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important > to you? We can discuss about it. > > > I just sent out a series of 4 patches equivalent to your patches 1-4/6 > > but based on my already unified kprobes.c/h, You may want to check your > > handling of restored registers in trampoline_probe_handler which I found > > when rebasing yours on top of my cleanups. Not sure if this is > > important, but it was a difference I found. > > > > X86_32: > > regs->cs = __KERNEL_CS | get_kernel_rpl(); > > > > yours: > > regs->cs = __KERNEL_CS; > > Because of kretprobe's compatibility, on x86-32 cs should be set rpl(). > But get_kernel_rpl() does not exist on x86-64. > I've already ported it and sent it to you. It's not really important to me I just think my fine-grained patches may be of some use to see where the differences between X86_32/64 ended up being. Your patches end up being just about entirely removal of ifdefs when rebased onto my patches, so it's at least a good secondary check of your patches even if mine don't go in. Your patches end up being much smaller against my version too. I like my version slightly better because the remaining ifdefs (wrmsr, etc) and others could be done in a few more small patches that are more easily reviewable than your large final unification patch. But, you know the code better than I.... Harvey -- 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/