Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759637AbYACDWN (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:22:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755392AbYACDV6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:21:58 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:46189 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754830AbYACDV5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:21:57 -0500 Message-ID: <477C5474.3040302@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:20:20 -0500 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harvey Harrison CC: Ingo Molnar , qbarnes , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Jim Keniston , davem@davemloft.net, Keshavamurthy Anil S Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use is_kprobe_fault to better match usage References: <1199322323.6323.76.camel@brick> <477C4A42.1010701@redhat.com> <1199329200.6323.97.camel@brick> In-Reply-To: <1199329200.6323.97.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: 1488 Lines: 47 Harvey Harrison wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 21:36 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> Hi Harvey, >> >> Harvey Harrison wrote: >>> Currently the notify_page_fault helper is used to test it the page >>> fault was caused by a kprobe causing an early return from do_page_fault. >>> >>> Change the name of the helper to is_kprobe_fault to match the usage and >>> remove the preempt_disable/enable pair around kprobe_running() with an >>> explicit test for preemption. The idea for this comes from a patch >>> by Quentin Barnes to kprobes.c >> Sure, that's right. >> However, since other architectures also have notify_page_fault(), >> I think all of those code might better be changed same time for >> maintainability. >> > > How about a static inline in linux/kprobes.h with a big comment above > about when/why the !preemptible() check is sufficient? Hmm, fault handling depends on the architecture. But current notify_page_fault()s are very similar. I think unifying it is good idea. We will be happy to review that if you send it. Many thanks! > > 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/