From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com (e9.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e9.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E7BF2C00C3 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:17:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e9.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:17:21 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87E16E803F for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r2L7HI8v267766 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:17:18 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r2L7HI2m003380 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 04:17:18 -0300 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:47:07 +0530 From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli To: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/uprobes: teach uprobes to ignore gdb breakpoints Message-ID: <20130321071707.GB5271@in.ibm.com> References: <20130320104033.GA19844@in.ibm.com> <20130320122639.GA29541@redhat.com> <20130320124301.GA30887@redhat.com> <20130320154245.GB8246@in.ibm.com> <20130320160728.GB20352@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130320160728.GB20352@redhat.com> Cc: ppcdev , Srikar Dronamraju , stable@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: ananth@in.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 05:07:28PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/20, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:43:01PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 03/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > But we did not install UPROBE_SWBP_INSN. Is it fine? I hope yes, just to > > > > verify. If not, we need 2 definitions. is_uprobe_insn() should still check > > > > insns == UPROBE_SWBP_INSN, and is_swbp_insn() should check is_trap(). > > > > > > > > And I am just curious, could you explain how X and UPROBE_SWBP_INSN > > > > differ? > > > > > > IOW, if I wasn't clear... Lets forget about gdb/etc for the moment. > > > Suppose we apply the patch below. Will uprobes on powerpc work? > > > > > > If yes, then your patch should be fine. If not, we probably need more > > > changes. > > > > Yes, it will work fine. > > Even if this new insn is conditional? Yes.