On 03/04/14 12:31, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/04, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:50:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
And why CONFIG_UPROBES should depend on PERF_EVENTS? uprobes can be
used by (say) systemtap without UPROBE_EVENT/PERF_EVENTS.
But as Russell
On 03/04/14 12:31, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/04, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:50:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
And why CONFIG_UPROBES should depend on PERF_EVENTS? uprobes can be
used by (say) systemtap without UPROBE_EVENT/PERF_EVENTS.
But as Russell
On 03/04, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:50:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > And why CONFIG_UPROBES should depend on PERF_EVENTS? uprobes can be
> > used by (say) systemtap without UPROBE_EVENT/PERF_EVENTS.
> >
> > But as Russell pointed out the events
On 03/04, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:50:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
And why CONFIG_UPROBES should depend on PERF_EVENTS? uprobes can be
used by (say) systemtap without UPROBE_EVENT/PERF_EVENTS.
But as Russell pointed out the events directory is only
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:50:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/02, David Long wrote:
> >
> > Oleg,
> >
> > I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where they
> > deal with uprobes. The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
> > CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT. It just doesn't look
On 03/02, David Long wrote:
>
> Oleg,
>
> I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where they
> deal with uprobes. The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
> CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT. It just doesn't look right to me.
Yes, this looks strange. I never understood these dependencies.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:53:24AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> 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
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
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
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:53:24AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
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
On 03/02, David Long wrote:
Oleg,
I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where they
deal with uprobes. The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT. It just doesn't look right to me.
Yes, this looks strange. I never understood these dependencies. In
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:50:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/02, David Long wrote:
Oleg,
I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where they
deal with uprobes. The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT. It just doesn't look right to me.
> Oleg,
>
> I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where
> they deal with uprobes. The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
> CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT. It just doesn't look right to me. It looks
It should be me who should take the blame for this and not Oleg. This
was
Oleg,
I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where they
deal with uprobes. The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT. It just doesn't look right to me. It looks like
"select" is used in part maybe just to avoid the recursive dependency
error that
Oleg,
I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where they
deal with uprobes. The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT. It just doesn't look right to me. It looks like
select is used in part maybe just to avoid the recursive dependency
error that
Oleg,
I've been looking at arch/Kconfig and kernel/trace/Kconfig where
they deal with uprobes. The relevant items are CONFIG_UPROBES and
CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENT. It just doesn't look right to me. It looks
It should be me who should take the blame for this and not Oleg. This
was discussed
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:38:51AM -0500, David Long wrote:
> This patch series adds basic uprobes support to ARM. It is based on patches
> developed earlier by Rabin Vincent. That approach of adding hooks into
> the kprobes instruction parsing code was not well received. This approach
> separates
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:38:51AM -0500, David Long wrote:
This patch series adds basic uprobes support to ARM. It is based on patches
developed earlier by Rabin Vincent. That approach of adding hooks into
the kprobes instruction parsing code was not well received. This approach
separates the
From: "David A. Long"
This patch series adds basic uprobes support to ARM. It is based on patches
developed earlier by Rabin Vincent. That approach of adding hooks into
the kprobes instruction parsing code was not well received. This approach
separates the ARM instruction parsing code in kprobes
From: David A. Long dave.l...@linaro.org
This patch series adds basic uprobes support to ARM. It is based on patches
developed earlier by Rabin Vincent. That approach of adding hooks into
the kprobes instruction parsing code was not well received. This approach
separates the ARM instruction
20 matches
Mail list logo
