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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
