On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/22, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > > > > +/** > > + * is_trap_insn - check if instruction is breakpoint instruction. > > + * @insn: instruction to be checked. > > + * Default implementation of is_trap_insn > > + * Returns true if @insn is a breakpoint instruction. > > + * > > + * This function is needed for the case where an architecture has multiple > > + * trap instructions (like powerpc). > > + */ > > +bool __weak is_trap_insn(uprobe_opcode_t *insn) > > +{ > > + return is_swbp_insn(insn); > > +} > > OK, thanks, the whole series looks fine, just one note...
OK. > My patch also changed prepare_uprobe() to use is_trap_insn(), and I think > this is right. Exactly because of 3/3 which removes is_trap() from > arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(). > > If the original insn is_trap(), we do not want to singlestep it and get > another trap after we hit handle_swbp(). OK, I'll send a v2 with that change. Ananth -- 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/