On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > The current code assumes that one of the two code sequences is a NOP, > > and therefore that jumping over the region is legal. This does not > > allow for transitioning one active code sequence to another. > > Correct, and I think we should keep the two changes separate, as the NOP > case is trivial. No need to complicate the trivial and common updates > (jump_labels and ftrace). But for things like kprobes, we could do a bit > more complex code, but it should probably be separate. > > Perhaps call this text_poke_nop_bp()?
Hmm ... I don't think this is exactly precise, at least as long as the implementation in the patchset I have submitted is concerned. Yes, most use cases (jump labels, perhaps ftrace) will simply be skipping over the patched region, pretending that NOP has been there; but the handler provided to text_poke_bp() is completely free to do any other kind of trickery. The one that jump label provides in PATCH 2/2 really just skips over the region, yes. But the interface potentially allows for more. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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/
