Re: [PATCH v5 7/14] x86 support for Uprobes

[Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

> > >
> > > I'm no x86 port guru, but this looks rather worriesome to me.  Why does
> > > do_notify_resume have different calling conventions on 32 vs 64-bit?
> > > And if there is a good reason that 32-bit has them disabled, why is
> > > enabling them in the middle of do_notify_resume okay?
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up. I have no idea about why do_notify_resume()
> > gets called with interrupts disabled in 32 bit.
> 
> Perhaps just because there is no reason to explicitly enable irqs?
> 
> > I would be happy to know
> > the reason and rework based on inputs. I did query a few people about
> > this but I havent got an answer on why we they are disabled on 32 bit and
> > if its Okay to enable at this place.
> 
> I think it is OK to enable interrupts. do_notify_resume() calls do_signal()
> which enables them anyway.
> 
> But there is another question I already asked. Why the code uses
> native_irq_enable()? IIRC, you explained that local_irq_enable() doesn't
> work for unkown reason. This is strange, and imho should be explained.
> 

local_irq_enable() translates to raw_local_irq_enable().
However raw_local_irq_enable on x86 seems to depend on CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
On a machine, where CONFIG_PARAVIRT was defined, local_irq_enable
translates to something other than native_irq_enable.
It translates to PVOP_VCALLEE0(pv_irq_ops.irq_enable);

Is it okay to use local_irq_enable() and then make CONFIG_UPROBES depend
on !CONFIG_PARAVIRT?



> And I do not see a need to disable irqs again.
> 
> Oleg.
>