Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753041Ab2H3PEK (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:04:10 -0400 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:45742 "EHLO e7.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750947Ab2H3PEI (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:04:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:33:35 +0530 From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Roland McGrath , Srikar Dronamraju , stan_shebs@mentor.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific arch_uprobe_*_step Message-ID: <20120830150335.GA15868@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: ananth@in.ibm.com References: <20120813132443.GB5269@redhat.com> <502A0C43.2000906@linutronix.de> <20120814142736.GA8123@redhat.com> <20120820104734.GA17034@linutronix.de> <20120822140337.GB28878@redhat.com> <5034E8A5.2060701@linutronix.de> <20120822155943.GA4237@redhat.com> <20120829173748.GA1121@redhat.com> <20120830084724.GC27415@in.ibm.com> <20120830143724.GA24514@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120830143724.GA24514@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12083015-5806-0000-0000-000018F990B9 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1824 Lines: 48 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:37:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/30, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:37:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > Ananth, Sebastian, what if we start with the patch below? Then > > > we can change arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c to use the static > > > uprobe_*_step() helpers from the 2nd patch. > > > > In principle I am fine with the change. > > OK, good. > > > > If we agree this code should be per-arch, then why do need other > > > hooks? This is just ugly, we already have arch_pre/post_xol. > > > > > > The only problem is the pending powerpc patches, the change below > > > obviously breaks them. Were they already applied? If not, then > > > probably Ananth can do v6 on top of the patch below ;) The necessary > > > fixup is trivial. > > > > They are under review. > > OK, I understand that v6 can confuse the maintainer and complicate the > merging process, please forget about v6. > > And yes, this is really minor problem, still it would be nice to avoid > the unnecessary hooks/complications... > > So. We can add "weak arch_uprobe" hooks, fix x86, and after powerpc is > merged change both powerpc and x86 in one patch (remove "weak" hooks > and move enable/disable into arch_pre/post_xol). > > Or. We can apply the patch I sent right now, you can fix powerpc later, > when it is merged. This all is for 3.7 anyway, and fixup is trivial. > > I agree either way. Which way do you prefer? I prefer fixing both together later, just so nothing breaks while intial testing, etc. Ananth -- 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/