From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: oleg@redhat.com (Oleg Nesterov) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:25:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 06/10] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore) In-Reply-To: References: <20180628052209.13056-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> <20180628052209.13056-7-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> <20180701210935.GA14404@redhat.com> <0c543791-f3b7-5a4b-f002-e1c76bb430c0@linux.ibm.com> <20180702180156.GA31400@redhat.com> <20180703163645.GA23144@redhat.com> <20180703172543.GC23144@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20180710152527.GA3616@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Ravi, On 07/04, Ravi Bangoria wrote: > > > Now I understand what did you mean by "for each consumer". So if we move this logic > > into install/remove_breakpoint as I tried to suggest, we will also need another error > > code for the case when verify_opcode() returns false. > > Ok so if we can use verify_opcode() inside install_breakpoint(), we can probably > move implementation logic in install/remove_breakpoint(). Let me explore that more. No, sorry for confusion, I meant another thing... But please forget. If we rely on verify_opcode() I no longer think it would be more clean to move this logic into install/remove_breakpoint. However, I still think it would be better to avoid uprobe exporting and modifying set_swbp/set_orig_insn. May be we can simply kill both set_swbp() and set_orig_insn(), I'll re-check... Oleg.