On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/22, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > +/**
> > + * is_trap_insn - check if instruction is breakpoint instruction.
> > + * @insn: instruction to be checked.
> > + * Default implementation of is_trap_insn
> > + * Returns true if @insn is a breakpoint instruction.
> > + *
> > + * This function is needed for the case where an architecture has multiple
> > + * trap instructions (like powerpc).
> > + */
> > +bool __weak is_trap_insn(uprobe_opcode_t *insn)
> > +{
> > + return is_swbp_insn(insn);
> > +}
>
> OK, thanks, the whole series looks fine, just one note...
OK.
> My patch also changed prepare_uprobe() to use is_trap_insn(), and I think
> this is right. Exactly because of 3/3 which removes is_trap() from
> arch_uprobe_analyze_insn().
>
> If the original insn is_trap(), we do not want to singlestep it and get
> another trap after we hit handle_swbp().
OK, I'll send a v2 with that change.
Ananth
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
