On 10/21, Rabin Vincent wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:35:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > And, to clarify, I am not arguing. Just curious.
> >
> > So, is this like cmov on x86? And this patch allows to not report if
> > the condition is not true? Or there are other issues on arm?
>
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:35:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/16, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > 2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov :
> > > Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case,
> > > but OK, I know nothing about arm.
> >
> > This old discussion about kprobes should be
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:35:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 10/16, Rabin Vincent wrote:
2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com:
Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case,
but OK, I know nothing about arm.
This old discussion about kprobes should be
On 10/21, Rabin Vincent wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:35:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
And, to clarify, I am not arguing. Just curious.
So, is this like cmov on x86? And this patch allows to not report if
the condition is not true? Or there are other issues on arm?
Yes, I
On 10/16, Rabin Vincent wrote:
>
> 2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov :
> >
> > Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case,
> > but OK, I know nothing about arm.
>
> This old discussion about kprobes should be useful:
>
>
> static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe(unsigned long bp_vaddr, int
> *is_swbp)
> {
> struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> @@ -1469,6 +1474,7 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
> struct uprobe *uprobe;
> unsigned long bp_vaddr;
> int
static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe(unsigned long bp_vaddr, int
*is_swbp)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current-mm;
@@ -1469,6 +1474,7 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
struct uprobe *uprobe;
unsigned long bp_vaddr;
int uninitialized_var(is_swbp);
On 10/16, Rabin Vincent wrote:
2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com:
Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case,
but OK, I know nothing about arm.
This old discussion about kprobes should be useful:
2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov :
> On 10/14, Rabin Vincent wrote:
>> Allow arches to decided to ignore a probe hit. ARM will use this to
>> only call handlers if the conditions to execute a conditionally executed
>> instruction are satisfied.
>
> Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in
2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com:
On 10/14, Rabin Vincent wrote:
Allow arches to decided to ignore a probe hit. ARM will use this to
only call handlers if the conditions to execute a conditionally executed
instruction are satisfied.
Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call
On 10/14, Rabin Vincent wrote:
>
> Allow arches to decided to ignore a probe hit. ARM will use this to
> only call handlers if the conditions to execute a conditionally executed
> instruction are satisfied.
Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case,
but OK, I know nothing
On 10/14, Rabin Vincent wrote:
Allow arches to decided to ignore a probe hit. ARM will use this to
only call handlers if the conditions to execute a conditionally executed
instruction are satisfied.
Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case,
but OK, I know nothing
Allow arches to decided to ignore a probe hit. ARM will use this to
only call handlers if the conditions to execute a conditionally executed
instruction are satisfied.
Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent
---
include/linux/uprobes.h |1 +
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 14 +-
2 files
Allow arches to decided to ignore a probe hit. ARM will use this to
only call handlers if the conditions to execute a conditionally executed
instruction are satisfied.
Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent ra...@rab.in
---
include/linux/uprobes.h |1 +
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 14 +-
14 matches
Mail list logo
