On 11/05/13 13:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/05, David Long wrote:
On 11/04/13 14:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Seriouly, how about the patch below?
In fact, given that you are going to reimplement set_swbp/orig_insn,
the new member is not strictly needed
On 11/05, David Long wrote:
>
> On 11/04/13 14:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>> Seriouly, how about the patch below?
>>
>> In fact, given that you are going to reimplement set_swbp/orig_insn,
>> the new member is not strictly needed (afaics). But it looks more
>>
On 11/04/13 14:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
David. Perhaps we can avoid the new hook altogether? What if we do
the simple change below (it ignores powerpc) ?
Then arm can add "unsigned long ixol[2]" into its arch_uprobe, and
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() can initialize
On 11/04/13 14:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
David. Perhaps we can avoid the new hook altogether? What if we do
the simple change below (it ignores powerpc) ?
Then arm can add unsigned long ixol[2] into its arch_uprobe, and
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() can initialize
On 11/05, David Long wrote:
On 11/04/13 14:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Seriouly, how about the patch below?
In fact, given that you are going to reimplement set_swbp/orig_insn,
the new member is not strictly needed (afaics). But it looks more
clear this way,
On 11/05/13 13:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/05, David Long wrote:
On 11/04/13 14:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Seriouly, how about the patch below?
In fact, given that you are going to reimplement set_swbp/orig_insn,
the new member is not strictly needed
On 11/04/13 14:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
David. Perhaps we can avoid the new hook altogether? What if we do
the simple change below (it ignores powerpc) ?
Then arm can add "unsigned long ixol[2]" into its arch_uprobe, and
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() can initialize
s member correctly.
>
> What do you think?
Seriouly, how about the patch below?
In fact, given that you are going to reimplement set_swbp/orig_insn,
the new member is not strictly needed (afaics). But it looks more
clear this way, and we need s/MAX_UINSN_BYTES/sizeof()/ anyway.
Oleg.
---
S
think?
Seriouly, how about the patch below?
In fact, given that you are going to reimplement set_swbp/orig_insn,
the new member is not strictly needed (afaics). But it looks more
clear this way, and we need s/MAX_UINSN_BYTES/sizeof()/ anyway.
Oleg.
---
Subject: [PATCH] uprobes: introduce
On 11/04/13 14:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 10/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
David. Perhaps we can avoid the new hook altogether? What if we do
the simple change below (it ignores powerpc) ?
Then arm can add unsigned long ixol[2] into its arch_uprobe, and
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() can initialize
10 matches
Mail list logo
