From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:36:00 +0000 Subject: [RFC 2/8] ARM64: Refactor kprobes-arm64 In-Reply-To: <54AEBF54.7000704@redhat.com> References: <9a86c217f387f45568c18b724024b0d3e040d2c6.1420038188.git.panand@redhat.com> <20150108165557.GQ11583@arm.com> <54AEBF54.7000704@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20150108173600.GW11583@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:33:08PM +0000, Pratyush Anand wrote: > On Thursday 08 January 2015 10:25 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 03:21:18PM +0000, Pratyush Anand wrote: > >> Most of the stuff of kprobes-arm64.c can also be used by uprobes.c. So > >> move all those part to common code area. In the process rename kprobe to > >> probe whereever possible. > >> > >> No functional change. > > > > In which case, can you merge this into the kprobes series (which we haven't > > merged yet)? > > > > Yes, thats why these are just RFCs. I will send next version of uprobe > only after kprobe patches are accepted into maintainer's tree. Ok, but it also makes sense to make kprobes refactoring changes *before* the patches are merged, as that reduces churn in mainline whilst you don't have any other dependencies. Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756874AbbAHRgK (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:36:10 -0500 Received: from foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com ([217.140.108.86]:58194 "EHLO foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750927AbbAHRgJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:36:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:36:00 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Pratyush Anand Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "tixy@linaro.org" , "ananth@in.ibm.com" , "sandeepa.prabhu@linaro.org" , Catalin Marinas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com" , "masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com" , "wcohen@redhat.com" , "oleg@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [RFC 2/8] ARM64: Refactor kprobes-arm64 Message-ID: <20150108173600.GW11583@arm.com> References: <9a86c217f387f45568c18b724024b0d3e040d2c6.1420038188.git.panand@redhat.com> <20150108165557.GQ11583@arm.com> <54AEBF54.7000704@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54AEBF54.7000704@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:33:08PM +0000, Pratyush Anand wrote: > On Thursday 08 January 2015 10:25 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 03:21:18PM +0000, Pratyush Anand wrote: > >> Most of the stuff of kprobes-arm64.c can also be used by uprobes.c. So > >> move all those part to common code area. In the process rename kprobe to > >> probe whereever possible. > >> > >> No functional change. > > > > In which case, can you merge this into the kprobes series (which we haven't > > merged yet)? > > > > Yes, thats why these are just RFCs. I will send next version of uprobe > only after kprobe patches are accepted into maintainer's tree. Ok, but it also makes sense to make kprobes refactoring changes *before* the patches are merged, as that reduces churn in mainline whilst you don't have any other dependencies. Will