linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Srikar Dronamraju)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v6 00/14] uprobes: Add uprobes support for ARM
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:53:24 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140303062324.GB20583@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53131DBE.7020500@linaro.org>

> Oleg,
>

> I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where
> they deal with uprobes.  The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
> CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT.  It just doesn't look right to me.  It looks

It should be me who should take the blame for this and not Oleg.  This
was discussed more than couple of times.  I can recollect couple of
discussions here.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1017186
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1001605

I know there were more discussions on this, but I cant dig them out at
this time.  Finally it was decided that
1. Users shouldnt have to select more than one config to select Uprobes.
2. There was no point in selecting Uprobes and not having Uprobe_event
and vice versa.

>From the above, If a user chose UPROBE_EVENT, (which is the interface
for uprobes), we would automatically assume that he wants to use Uprobes
framework.

> like "select" is used in part maybe just to avoid the recursive
> dependency error that would be generated if "depends on" were used
> in both places.

We did "Select Uprobes" not because of avoiding recursive dependency but
as told above, to select the framework, given that user has chosen the
framework. We dont want to give a choice to user to choose uprobe_event
but not choose Uprobes or vice versa.

> However I don't think UPROBES should be dependent on
> UPROBE_EVENT, only the other way around.  As RK noted in previous

Whats the point of having the framework(Uprobes) without an interface?

> email (copied in part below) the select does not pull in the lower
> level dependencies.  This all works on x86 only because
> arch/x86/Kconfig defines CONFIG_PERF_EVENT (which feels like a big
> hammer).  We don't need to do this on ARM, and we don't do it.  The
> result is that, unless PERF_EVENT is set separately, uprobes tends
> not to build.  I was lucking-out in my testing due to other default
> config items turning on PERF_EVENT.
>

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-03  6:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-10  7:38 [PATCH v6 00/14] uprobes: Add uprobes support for ARM David Long
2014-02-10  7:38 ` [PATCH v6 01/14] uprobes: allow ignoring of probe hits David Long
2014-02-10  7:38 ` [PATCH v6 02/14] ARM: move shared uprobe/kprobe definitions into new include file David Long
2014-02-10  7:38 ` [PATCH v6 03/14] ARM: Move generic arm instruction parsing code to new files for sharing between features David Long
2014-02-10  7:38 ` [PATCH v6 04/14] ARM: move generic thumb instruction parsing code to new files for use by other feature David Long
2014-02-10  7:38 ` [PATCH v6 05/14] ARM: use a function table for determining instruction interpreter action David Long
2014-02-10  7:38 ` [PATCH v6 06/14] ARM: Disable jprobes test when built into thumb-mode kernel David Long
2014-02-10  7:38 ` [PATCH v6 07/14] ARM: Remove use of struct kprobe from generic probes code David Long
2014-02-28 10:12   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-02-28 14:11     ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2014-02-28 14:45       ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2014-03-02 10:37     ` David Long
2014-03-02 12:11       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-02-10  7:38 ` [PATCH v6 08/14] ARM: Make the kprobes condition_check symbol names more generic David Long
2014-02-10  7:39 ` [PATCH v6 09/14] ARM: Change more ARM kprobes symbol names to something more David Long
2014-02-10  7:39 ` [PATCH v6 10/14] ARM: Rename the shared kprobes/uprobe return value enum David Long
2014-02-10  7:39 ` [PATCH v6 11/14] ARM: Change the remaining shared kprobes/uprobes symbols to something generic David Long
2014-02-10  7:39 ` [PATCH v6 12/14] ARM: Add an emulate flag to the kprobes/uprobes instruction decode functions David Long
2014-02-10  7:39 ` [PATCH v6 13/14] ARM: Make arch_specific_insn a define for new arch_probes_insn structure David Long
2014-02-10  7:39 ` [PATCH v6 14/14] ARM: add uprobes support David Long
2014-03-01 12:30 ` [PATCH v6 00/14] uprobes: Add uprobes support for ARM Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-03-02 12:02   ` David Long
2014-03-03  6:23     ` Srikar Dronamraju [this message]
2014-03-03 10:08       ` David Long
2014-03-03 10:39       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-03-03 20:50     ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-03-04  0:53       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-03-04 17:31         ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-03-06  8:10           ` David Long

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140303062324.GB20583@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).