Thanks, I hope that Jim's ack still applies to this version.
On 05/01, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> v4: Changed arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped() comment to reflect new logic.
Hmm. I guess you meant arch_uprobe_post_xol()... please see below.
> static int default_post_xol_op(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs
> *regs)
> {
> struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
> - long correction = (long)(utask->vaddr - utask->xol_vaddr);
>
> - riprel_post_xol(auprobe, regs, &correction);
> + riprel_post_xol(auprobe, regs);
> if (auprobe->def.fixups & UPROBE_FIX_IP) {
> + long correction = (long)(utask->vaddr - utask->xol_vaddr);
Can't resist, I'll remove this pointless cast ;)
> * If the original instruction was a rip-relative instruction such as
> * "movl %edx,0xnnnn(%rip)", we have instead executed an equivalent
> - * instruction using a scratch register -- e.g., "movl %edx,(%rax)".
> - * We need to restore the contents of the scratch register and adjust
> - * the ip, keeping in mind that the instruction we executed is 4 bytes
> - * shorter than the original instruction (since we squeezed out the offset
> - * field). (FIX_RIP_AX or FIX_RIP_CX)
> + * instruction using a scratch register -- e.g., "movl %edx,0xnnnn(%rax)".
> + * We need to restore the contents of the scratch register
> + * (FIX_RIP_AX or FIX_RIP_CX).
> */
> int arch_uprobe_post_xol(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
Perhaps it makes sense to move this part of the comment above
default_post_xol_op() which actually does this...
I won't insist, I do not really care because I almost never read the comments
anyway ;)
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
