e it is useless, I don't see how this patch snippet applies to my
patchset at all.
If you suggest to change the way locking is currently done in
kprobes, please do this in a separate thread, as a RFC ?
Mathieu
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mai
{
> > mutex_lock(&kprobe_mutex);
> > if (p->break_handler)
>
> I think "mutex_lock" and "mutex_unlock" shoud be in architecture code.
> In "__register_kprobe" funtion, its implement
> "arch_prepare_kprobe&quo
the other embeded system chips in future.
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ingo Molnar;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Mathieu
This is an architecture independant synchronization around kernel text
modifications through use of a global mutex.
A mutex has been chosen so that kprobes, the main user of this, can sleep during
memory allocation between the memory read of the instructions it must replace
and the memory write of
4 matches
Mail list logo