From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: panand@redhat.com (Pratyush Anand) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:09:03 +0530 Subject: [RFC 2/8] ARM64: Refactor kprobes-arm64 In-Reply-To: <20150108173600.GW11583@arm.com> References: <9a86c217f387f45568c18b724024b0d3e040d2c6.1420038188.git.panand@redhat.com> <20150108165557.GQ11583@arm.com> <54AEBF54.7000704@redhat.com> <20150108173600.GW11583@arm.com> Message-ID: <54AEC0B7.5060509@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 08 January 2015 11:06 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > 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. > Sure, Sure.. I too expect first two patches to be merged with kprobe series. I just did that to develop my uprobe code. ~Pratyush > 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 S932079AbbAHRj4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:39:56 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35624 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751896AbbAHRjz (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:39:55 -0500 Message-ID: <54AEC0B7.5060509@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:09:03 +0530 From: Pratyush Anand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Will Deacon 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 References: <9a86c217f387f45568c18b724024b0d3e040d2c6.1420038188.git.panand@redhat.com> <20150108165557.GQ11583@arm.com> <54AEBF54.7000704@redhat.com> <20150108173600.GW11583@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20150108173600.GW11583@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 08 January 2015 11:06 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > 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. > Sure, Sure.. I too expect first two patches to be merged with kprobe series. I just did that to develop my uprobe code. ~Pratyush > Will >