On 08/30, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:37:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > 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 arc
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.
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
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:37:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > Ehm. Is there anything I missed to do? Or are you speculating on
> > > changes which will clash with these here?
> >
> > If we have task_set_blockstep(), then perhaps it mmakes sense to
> > avo
On 08/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Ehm. Is there anything I missed to do? Or are you speculating on
> > changes which will clash with these here?
>
> If we have task_set_blockstep(), then perhaps it mmakes sense to
> avoid user_enable_singlestep()/TIF_SINGLESTEP from the start.
> We will see.
Bu
On 08/22, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> On 08/22/2012 04:03 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> Sebastian, we have other uprobes patches in flight, I'll returns to
>> this after we push them.
>>
>> As I said, personally I mostly agree with this change... but may be
>> I'll try to convince you to
On 08/22/2012 04:03 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/20, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
The arch specific implementation behaves like user_enable_single_step()
except that it does not disable single stepping if it was already
enabled.
Sebastian, we have other uprobes patches in flight, I'll r
On 08/20, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> The arch specific implementation behaves like user_enable_single_step()
> except that it does not disable single stepping if it was already
> enabled.
Sebastian, we have other uprobes patches in flight, I'll returns to
this after we push them.
As I s
8 matches
Mail list logo
