From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
To: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, qbarnes <qbarnes@gmail.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>,
davem@davemloft.net,
Keshavamurthy Anil S <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use is_kprobe_fault to better match usage
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:20:20 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <477C5474.3040302@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1199329200.6323.97.camel@brick>
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 21:36 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Hi Harvey,
>>
>> Harvey Harrison wrote:
>>> Currently the notify_page_fault helper is used to test it the page
>>> fault was caused by a kprobe causing an early return from do_page_fault.
>>>
>>> Change the name of the helper to is_kprobe_fault to match the usage and
>>> remove the preempt_disable/enable pair around kprobe_running() with an
>>> explicit test for preemption. The idea for this comes from a patch
>>> by Quentin Barnes to kprobes.c
>> Sure, that's right.
>> However, since other architectures also have notify_page_fault(),
>> I think all of those code might better be changed same time for
>> maintainability.
>>
>
> How about a static inline in linux/kprobes.h with a big comment above
> about when/why the !preemptible() check is sufficient?
Hmm, fault handling depends on the architecture. But current
notify_page_fault()s are very similar. I think unifying it is good idea.
We will be happy to review that if you send it.
Many thanks!
>
> Harvey
>
>
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-03 3:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-03 1:05 [PATCH] x86: Use is_kprobe_fault to better match usage Harvey Harrison
2008-01-03 2:36 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2008-01-03 3:00 ` Harvey Harrison
2008-01-03 3:20 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2008-01-03 9:38 ` Ingo Molnar
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=477C5474.3040302@redhat.com \
--to=mhiramat@redhat.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=harvey.harrison@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jkenisto@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=qbarnes@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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