On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 16:42 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:22:54 +0000 > Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 06:58:23AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > > wrote: > > > It's a sane thing to do, Christoph, I don't think it's a > > > unreasonable request to put the hooks back in. > > > > As said a few times before there's simply no way we're going to put > > exactly that crap back. For one the patch removed a whole lot of > > crud from the kprobes code that simply isn't going to come back just > > because there are some pagefault notifiers. Second the page fault > > notifiers were horribly implemented and quite inefficient. And third > > we're not going to put something in just for out of tree code. > > > > I'm btw all in favor of making mmio tracing full fledged kernel > infrastructure. > This doesn't mean "notifier" imo; this means a real flag in the struct page, > and then the page fault code can do > > if (page->flags & FLAG_MMIO_TRACED) > mmio_trace(page, regs, whatever..);
That makes it way too easy for drivers of questionable legality to just clear that bit. Also, we've got a shortage of page bits, etc. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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/
