Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches

[Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 18:14 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Harvey,
> 
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Harvey,
> >> Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important
> >> to you? We can discuss about it.
> > 
> > I've already ported it and sent it to you.  It's not really important to
> > me I just think my fine-grained patches may be of some use to see where
> > the differences between X86_32/64 ended up being.  Your patches end up
> > being just about entirely removal of ifdefs when rebased onto my
> > patches, so it's at least a good secondary check of your patches even
> > if mine don't go in.  Your patches end up being much smaller against
> > my version too.
> 
> OK, I'll review that.
> 
> >
> > I like my version slightly better because the remaining ifdefs (wrmsr,
> > etc) and others could be done in a few more small patches that are more
> > easily reviewable than your large final unification patch.
> 
> I agreed that your patches are including some goodness.
> So let us merge it into one.
> 
> 

OK, I'll take the last bits of your patches 5/6 that aren't already
cleaned up and send out a unified patchset for you to add your
acked/signed off by/reviewed by as appropriate.

These are:

-add stack_addr() macro
-I prefer the table defintion macros in mine as it avoids the need to
cast the pointer passed to test_bit, but if you want them
to be u32 as in your patch, I can change it.
-wrmsr/wrmsrl - use wrmsr() for both
-call is_IF_modifier with p->ainsn.insn in both
-check casting of jprobe_saved_sp, I get some compile warnings currently
with pointer comparisons to signed/unsigned types.

That will eliminate nearly all of the remaining ifdefs in my version,
let me work through this and I'll send out a set for review.

CHeers,

Harvey