On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 23:43 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Harvey,
> >>
> >> Thank you for cleaning this up.
> >>
> >> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
> >>>
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Hi Harvey,
>>
>> Thank you for cleaning this up.
>>
>> Harvey Harrison wrote:
>>> Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
>>>
>>> Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
>>> only
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Harvey,
>
> Thank you for cleaning this up.
>
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
> >
> > Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
> > only called once. Minor whitespace
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 12:29 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry I missed an ifdef in this patch in the following hunk:
> >
> > could you resend your kprobes cleanups against current x86.git?
Hi Harvey,
Thank you for cleaning this up.
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
>
> Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
> only called once. Minor whitespace cleanup. Eliminate one
> supefluous return at end of void function.
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 12:29 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sorry I missed an ifdef in this patch in the following hunk:
>
> could you resend your kprobes cleanups against current x86.git? They
> have been conceptually acked by Masami. This cuts out
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry I missed an ifdef in this patch in the following hunk:
could you resend your kprobes cleanups against current x86.git? They
have been conceptually acked by Masami. This cuts out the unification
part of your queue which is bad luck but the
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry I missed an ifdef in this patch in the following hunk:
could you resend your kprobes cleanups against current x86.git? They
have been conceptually acked by Masami. This cuts out the unification
part of your queue which is bad luck but the effort
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 12:29 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry I missed an ifdef in this patch in the following hunk:
could you resend your kprobes cleanups against current x86.git? They
have been conceptually acked by Masami. This cuts out the
Hi Harvey,
Thank you for cleaning this up.
Harvey Harrison wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
only called once. Minor whitespace cleanup. Eliminate one
supefluous return at end of void function. Reverse
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 12:29 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry I missed an ifdef in this patch in the following hunk:
could you resend your kprobes cleanups against current x86.git? They
have been
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
Hi Harvey,
Thank you for cleaning this up.
Harvey Harrison wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
only called once. Minor whitespace cleanup.
Harvey Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
Hi Harvey,
Thank you for cleaning this up.
Harvey Harrison wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
only called once. Minor
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 23:43 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
Harvey Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
Hi Harvey,
Thank you for cleaning this up.
Harvey Harrison wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
Eliminate
Sorry I missed an ifdef in this patch in the following hunk:
@@ -183,6 +185,9 @@ retry:
}
switch (opcode & 0xf0) {
+#ifdef X86_64
+ case 0x40:
+ goto retry; /* REX prefix is boostable */
case 0x60:
if (0x63 < opcode && opcode < 0x67)
Based on X86_32, mostly by un-ifdeffing code.
Based on patch from Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c | 57 +++--
include/asm-x86/kprobes.h | 12 +
2 files
Based on X86_32, mostly by un-ifdeffing code.
Based on patch from Masami Hiramatsu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c | 57 +++--
include/asm-x86/kprobes.h | 12 +
2 files changed,
Sorry I missed an ifdef in this patch in the following hunk:
@@ -183,6 +185,9 @@ retry:
}
switch (opcode 0xf0) {
+#ifdef X86_64
+ case 0x40:
+ goto retry; /* REX prefix is boostable */
case 0x60:
if (0x63 opcode opcode 0x67)
18 matches
Mail list logo
