On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 15:17 -0500, David Long wrote: > Masami/Tixy, > > As I just noted in a previous email the kprobes.h thing has come back to > haunt me. Something more is needed in my last patchset. Tixy's > suggestion regarding the arch_specific_insn structure: > > > However, I also wonder if we should instead leave arch_specific_insn as > > a kprobes specific structure and on ARM define it in terms of a new more > > generic 'struct probe_insn'? The drawback with that is that we'd > > probably end up with a struct just containing a single member which > > seems a bit redundant: > > > > struct arch_specific_insn { > > struct probe_insn pinsn; > > }; > > > > Thought's anyone? > > ...got me thinking. When I do as he suggests and create a new > arch-specific structure for sharing between kprobes and uprobes then it > turns out simply #define'ing the arch_specific_insn structure tag to the > new structure tag in arch/arm/include/kprobes.h makes everything happy. > When KPROBES is not configured that include file is (still) not > included and the generic kprobes.h include file still continues to make > a dummy structure for it. My question is: Is it too hacky to use a > #define for a structure tag this way?
I can't think of any technical reason why this wouldn't work and I see you've have implemented this method in the latest uprobes patches [1]. It does mean that would be able to progress with ARM uprobes if there is no immediate enthusiasm for making kprobes/uprobes more unified at the generic kernel layers. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-December/219463.html -- Tixy -- 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/