From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754315AbaCCKIl (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:08:41 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:33539 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754270AbaCCKI3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:08:29 -0500 Message-ID: <53145486.8060009@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 05:08:06 -0500 From: David Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Srikar Dronamraju CC: Russell King - ARM Linux , Oleg Nesterov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Rabin Vincent , "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" , Ingo Molnar , Masami Hiramatsu , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Anil S Keshavamurthy , davem@davemloft.net, Peter Zijlstra , Paul Mackerras , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/14] uprobes: Add uprobes support for ARM References: <1392017945-4507-1-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org> <20140301123026.GD21483@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <53131DBE.7020500@linaro.org> <20140303062324.GB20583@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20140303062324.GB20583@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/03/14 01:23, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > It should be me who should take the blame for this and not Oleg. This > was discussed more than couple of times. I can recollect couple of > discussions here. > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1017186 > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1001605 I wasn't trying to assign blame to anyone, I was just soliciting an opinion from the last uprobes maintainer I had a conversation with. Thanks for the links. > I know there were more discussions on this, but I cant dig them out at > this time. Finally it was decided that > 1. Users shouldnt have to select more than one config to select Uprobes. > 2. There was no point in selecting Uprobes and not having Uprobe_event > and vice versa. > > From the above, If a user chose UPROBE_EVENT, (which is the interface > for uprobes), we would automatically assume that he wants to use Uprobes > framework. > >> like "select" is used in part maybe just to avoid the recursive >> dependency error that would be generated if "depends on" were used >> in both places. > > We did "Select Uprobes" not because of avoiding recursive dependency but > as told above, to select the framework, given that user has chosen the > framework. We dont want to give a choice to user to choose uprobe_event > but not choose Uprobes or vice versa. I suppose that's more to the point. >> However I don't think UPROBES should be dependent on >> UPROBE_EVENT, only the other way around. As RK noted in previous > > Whats the point of having the framework(Uprobes) without an interface? > My comment was based only in the fact it built successfully that way on both x86 and ARM. If there's no way to access the functionality without both selected then I suppose it does make sense to not allow that configuration. Maybe it's time to remove one of these config symbols. I didn't see anything in the email history on this that says that would be a bad idea. I'll try and come up with a patch. -dl