From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dave.long@linaro.org (David Long)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:17:46 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v3 00/15] uprobes: Add uprobes support for ARM
In-Reply-To: <529F6B88.2050005@linaro.org>
References: <1385520814-10663-1-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org>
 <529F6B88.2050005@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <52A0DF6A.1010402@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Masami/Tixy,

As I just noted in a previous email the kprobes.h thing has come back to 
haunt me.  Something more is needed in my last patchset.  Tixy's 
suggestion regarding the arch_specific_insn structure:

> However, I also wonder if we should instead leave arch_specific_insn as
> a kprobes specific structure and on ARM define it in terms of a new more
> generic 'struct probe_insn'? The drawback with that is that we'd
> probably end up with a struct just containing a single member which
> seems a bit redundant:
>
> struct arch_specific_insn {
> 	struct probe_insn pinsn;
> };
>
> Thought's anyone?

...got me thinking.  When I do as he suggests and create a new 
arch-specific structure for sharing between kprobes and uprobes then it 
turns out simply #define'ing the arch_specific_insn structure tag to the 
new structure tag in arch/arm/include/kprobes.h makes everything happy. 
  When KPROBES is not configured that include file is (still) not 
included and the generic kprobes.h include file still continues to make 
a dummy structure for it.  My question is:  Is it too hacky to use a 
#define for a structure tag this way?

-dl