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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
