From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
stan_shebs@mentor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific arch_uprobe_*_step
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:33:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120830150335.GA15868@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120830143724.GA24514@redhat.com>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:37:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/30, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:37:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Ananth, Sebastian, what if we start with the patch below? Then
> > > we can change arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c to use the static
> > > uprobe_*_step() helpers from the 2nd patch.
> >
> > In principle I am fine with the change.
>
> OK, good.
>
> > > If we agree this code should be per-arch, then why do need other
> > > hooks? This is just ugly, we already have arch_pre/post_xol.
> > >
> > > The only problem is the pending powerpc patches, the change below
> > > obviously breaks them. Were they already applied? If not, then
> > > probably Ananth can do v6 on top of the patch below ;) The necessary
> > > fixup is trivial.
> >
> > They are under review.
>
> OK, I understand that v6 can confuse the maintainer and complicate the
> merging process, please forget about v6.
>
> And yes, this is really minor problem, still it would be nice to avoid
> the unnecessary hooks/complications...
>
> So. We can add "weak arch_uprobe" hooks, fix x86, and after powerpc is
> merged change both powerpc and x86 in one patch (remove "weak" hooks
> and move enable/disable into arch_pre/post_xol).
>
> Or. We can apply the patch I sent right now, you can fix powerpc later,
> when it is merged. This all is for 3.7 anyway, and fixup is trivial.
>
> I agree either way. Which way do you prefer?
I prefer fixing both together later, just so nothing breaks while intial
testing, etc.
Ananth
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-30 15:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-07 16:12 uprobe: single step over uprobe & global breakpoints Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-07 16:12 ` [PATCH 1/5] uprobes: Use a helper instead of ptrace's single step enable Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-07 16:12 ` [PATCH 2/5] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific arch_uprobe_*_step Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-08 12:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-08 13:17 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-08 14:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-08 15:02 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-09 4:43 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2012-08-09 17:09 ` [PATCH v2 " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-13 13:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-14 8:28 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-14 14:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 10:47 ` [PATCH v3] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-22 14:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-22 14:11 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-22 15:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-29 17:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-30 8:47 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2012-08-30 11:18 ` [PATCH] x86/uprobes: don't disable single stepping if it was already on Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-30 14:37 ` [PATCH v3] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific arch_uprobe_*_step Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-30 15:03 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [this message]
2012-08-30 15:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-07 16:12 ` [PATCH 3/5] uprobes: remove check for uprobe variable in handle_swbp() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-08 9:10 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2012-08-08 9:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-10 5:23 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2012-08-08 12:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-07 16:12 ` [PATCH 4/5] uprobes: probe definiton can only start with 'p' and '-' Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-07 16:12 ` [RFC 5/5] uprobes: add global breakpoints Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-08 13:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-09 17:18 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-13 13:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-14 11:43 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-13 11:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:26 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-21 19:42 ` [RFC 5/5 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-22 13:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-27 18:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-08-29 15:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-30 20:42 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120830150335.GA15868@in.ibm.com \
--to=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=stan_shebs@mentor.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).