On 10/17, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> * Rabin Vincent <ra...@rab.in> [2012-10-14 21:23:06]:
>
> > void __weak arch_uprobe_enable_step(struct arch_uprobe *arch)
> > {
> > - user_enable_single_step(current);
> > + if (arch_has_single_step())
> > + user_enable_single_step(current);
> > }
> >
> > void __weak arch_uprobe_disable_step(struct arch_uprobe *arch)
>
> This change is fine. But I am wondering if should have a dummy
> arch_uprobe_enable_step / arch_uprobe_disable_step in uprobes ARM.
Or, better, we can kill it. We wertr going to do this anyway, we were
waiting for powerpc port.
Just I do not know how this change should be routed, it should update
both x86/powerpc.
Or do you think arch_uprobe_enable_step() still makes any sense?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
