From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753695Ab1I0Lnm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:43:42 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:54546 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753676Ab1I0Lnk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:43:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 4/26]   uprobes: Define hooks for
 mmap/munmap.
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jim Keniston <jkenisto@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:42:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20110926154414.GB13535@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20110920115938.25326.93059.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com>
	 <20110920120040.25326.63549.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com>
	 <1317045191.1763.22.camel@twins>
	 <20110926154414.GB13535@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3- 
Message-ID: <1317123755.15383.39.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 21:14 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > Isn't good enough? Also, returning an rb_node just seems iffy.. 
> 
> yup this can be done. can you please elaborate on why passing back an
> rb_node is an issue? 

Just seems ugly to me, why return a pointer inside the object the
function name deals with.