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 >