Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936271AbXLQXUe (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:20:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762629AbXLQXUW (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:20:22 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:59862 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753161AbXLQXUS (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:20:18 -0500 Message-ID: <476702C4.8070205@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:14:12 -0500 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harvey Harrison 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 Subject: Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches 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> <1197928823.23402.108.camel@brick> In-Reply-To: <1197928823.23402.108.camel@brick> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2049 Lines: 62 Hi Harvey, Harvey Harrison wrote: > 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. OK, I'll review that. > > 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. I agreed that your patches are including some goodness. So let us merge it into one. > > But, you know the code better than I.... > > Harvey > -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com -- 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/