Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make struct jprobe.entry a void *
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 09:29 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:48:50AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > --- > > > > It isn't obvious where kprobes patches should go, is anyone "the" > > maintainer? > > Instead I've just sent this to everyone who'd touched the code lately, or > > might be otherwise interested. > > There isn't a single maintainer for the kprobes infrastructure as it > contains quite a bit of low level arch specific code. The working model > currently is that the patches are sent to lkml with a cc to the > maintainers listed, as you've rightly done. OK, no worries. I guess that's a bit messy to put into a MAINTAINERS entry. cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make struct jprobe.entry a void *
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:48:50AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > --- > > It isn't obvious where kprobes patches should go, is anyone "the" maintainer? > Instead I've just sent this to everyone who'd touched the code lately, or > might be otherwise interested. There isn't a single maintainer for the kprobes infrastructure as it contains quite a bit of low level arch specific code. The working model currently is that the patches are sent to lkml with a cc to the maintainers listed, as you've rightly done. Ananth - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make struct jprobe.entry a void *
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:48:50AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Currently jprobe.entry is a kprobe_opcode_t *, but that's a lie. On some
> platforms it doesn't point to an opcode at all, it points to a function
> descriptor.
>
> It's really a pointer to something that the arch code can turn into a
> function entry point. And that's what actually happens, none of the
> generic code ever looks at jprobe.entry, it's only ever dereferenced
> by arch code.
>
> So just make it a void *.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tested on powerpc. Ack to all three patches plus Andrew's declaration
fixup.
Thanks Michael for the patches.
Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> It isn't obvious where kprobes patches should go, is anyone "the" maintainer?
> Instead I've just sent this to everyone who'd touched the code lately, or
> might be otherwise interested.
>
>
> include/linux/kprobes.h |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kprobes.h b/include/linux/kprobes.h
> index 23adf60..f4e53b7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kprobes.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kprobes.h
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ struct kprobe {
> */
> struct jprobe {
> struct kprobe kp;
> - kprobe_opcode_t *entry; /* probe handling code to jump to */
> + void *entry;/* probe handling code to jump to */
> };
>
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, current_kprobe);
> --
> 1.5.1.3.g7a33b
-
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/
[PATCH 1/3] Make struct jprobe.entry a void *
Currently jprobe.entry is a kprobe_opcode_t *, but that's a lie. On some
platforms it doesn't point to an opcode at all, it points to a function
descriptor.
It's really a pointer to something that the arch code can turn into a
function entry point. And that's what actually happens, none of the
generic code ever looks at jprobe.entry, it's only ever dereferenced
by arch code.
So just make it a void *.
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
It isn't obvious where kprobes patches should go, is anyone "the" maintainer?
Instead I've just sent this to everyone who'd touched the code lately, or
might be otherwise interested.
include/linux/kprobes.h |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/kprobes.h b/include/linux/kprobes.h
index 23adf60..f4e53b7 100644
--- a/include/linux/kprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/kprobes.h
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ struct kprobe {
*/
struct jprobe {
struct kprobe kp;
- kprobe_opcode_t *entry; /* probe handling code to jump to */
+ void *entry;/* probe handling code to jump to */
};
DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, current_kprobe);
--
1.5.1.3.g7a33b
-
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/
[PATCH 1/3] Make struct jprobe.entry a void *
Currently jprobe.entry is a kprobe_opcode_t *, but that's a lie. On some
platforms it doesn't point to an opcode at all, it points to a function
descriptor.
It's really a pointer to something that the arch code can turn into a
function entry point. And that's what actually happens, none of the
generic code ever looks at jprobe.entry, it's only ever dereferenced
by arch code.
So just make it a void *.
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
It isn't obvious where kprobes patches should go, is anyone the maintainer?
Instead I've just sent this to everyone who'd touched the code lately, or
might be otherwise interested.
include/linux/kprobes.h |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/kprobes.h b/include/linux/kprobes.h
index 23adf60..f4e53b7 100644
--- a/include/linux/kprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/kprobes.h
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ struct kprobe {
*/
struct jprobe {
struct kprobe kp;
- kprobe_opcode_t *entry; /* probe handling code to jump to */
+ void *entry;/* probe handling code to jump to */
};
DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, current_kprobe);
--
1.5.1.3.g7a33b
-
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make struct jprobe.entry a void *
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:48:50AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Currently jprobe.entry is a kprobe_opcode_t *, but that's a lie. On some
platforms it doesn't point to an opcode at all, it points to a function
descriptor.
It's really a pointer to something that the arch code can turn into a
function entry point. And that's what actually happens, none of the
generic code ever looks at jprobe.entry, it's only ever dereferenced
by arch code.
So just make it a void *.
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tested on powerpc. Ack to all three patches plus Andrew's declaration
fixup.
Thanks Michael for the patches.
Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
It isn't obvious where kprobes patches should go, is anyone the maintainer?
Instead I've just sent this to everyone who'd touched the code lately, or
might be otherwise interested.
include/linux/kprobes.h |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/kprobes.h b/include/linux/kprobes.h
index 23adf60..f4e53b7 100644
--- a/include/linux/kprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/kprobes.h
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ struct kprobe {
*/
struct jprobe {
struct kprobe kp;
- kprobe_opcode_t *entry; /* probe handling code to jump to */
+ void *entry;/* probe handling code to jump to */
};
DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, current_kprobe);
--
1.5.1.3.g7a33b
-
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make struct jprobe.entry a void *
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:48:50AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: --- It isn't obvious where kprobes patches should go, is anyone the maintainer? Instead I've just sent this to everyone who'd touched the code lately, or might be otherwise interested. There isn't a single maintainer for the kprobes infrastructure as it contains quite a bit of low level arch specific code. The working model currently is that the patches are sent to lkml with a cc to the maintainers listed, as you've rightly done. Ananth - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make struct jprobe.entry a void *
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 09:29 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:48:50AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: --- It isn't obvious where kprobes patches should go, is anyone the maintainer? Instead I've just sent this to everyone who'd touched the code lately, or might be otherwise interested. There isn't a single maintainer for the kprobes infrastructure as it contains quite a bit of low level arch specific code. The working model currently is that the patches are sent to lkml with a cc to the maintainers listed, as you've rightly done. OK, no worries. I guess that's a bit messy to put into a MAINTAINERS entry. cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
