On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:21:28 -0700
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:26 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyone have any issues with this patch?
> >
>
> I'm conceptually okay with it. That being said,
> regs_within_kernel_stack(), which you're indirectly using, is
> off-
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 23:56:46 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:54:39 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:21:28 -0700
> > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:26 AM Steven Rostedt
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyon
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 23:56:46 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> This patch looks good to me.
> But if the concern is real, all regs_get_kernel_stack_nth() user must move
> onto _safe() version, at least all tracers code.
Doing a git grep on regs_get_kernel_stack_nth(), I think you are right.
I'll r
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:54:39 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:21:28 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:26 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone have any issues with this patch?
> > >
> >
> > I'm conceptually okay with it. That bei
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:21:28 -0700
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:26 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyone have any issues with this patch?
> >
>
> I'm conceptually okay with it. That being said,
> regs_within_kernel_stack(), which you're indirectly using, is
> off-
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:21:28 -0700
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:26 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyone have any issues with this patch?
> >
>
> I'm conceptually okay with it. That being said,
> regs_within_kernel_stack(), which you're indirectly using, is
> off-
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:26 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>
> Anyone have any issues with this patch?
>
I'm conceptually okay with it. That being said,
regs_within_kernel_stack(), which you're indirectly using, is
off-by-a-few. And updating it to use probe_kernel_read() might be
nice for robustne
Anyone have any issues with this patch?
-- Steve
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 23:00:21 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [
> A while ago I posted an RFC patchset for dynamic function based
> events. But Masami pointed out that this could be done with kprobes
> with minimal changes. He posted a patc
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 23:00:21 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> A while ago I posted an RFC patchset for dynamic function based
> events. But Masami pointed out that this could be done with kprobes
> with minimal changes. He posted a patch set back in March
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/152049860
[
A while ago I posted an RFC patchset for dynamic function based
events. But Masami pointed out that this could be done with kprobes
with minimal changes. He posted a patch set back in March
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/152049860385.7289.14079393589900496424.stgit@devbox
I've pulled this i
10 matches
Mail list logo
