On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:21 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:24:00PM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:28 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
> > > > module, the call to get_kprobe() needs
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:24:00PM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:28 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
> > > module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be replaced with some other
> > > gcc-inline-defeating
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:28 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
> > module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be replaced with some other
> > gcc-inline-defeating mechanism, or we need to export get_probe(). I
>
> It's still unclear
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 08:00:03AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > kernel/kprobes.c|2
> > > >
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > kernel/kprobes.c|2
> > > kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
> > >
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kernel/kprobes.c|2
kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
Can you
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 08:00:03AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kernel/kprobes.c|2
kernel/test_kprobes.c |
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:28 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be replaced with some other
gcc-inline-defeating mechanism, or we need to export get_probe(). I
It's still unclear where
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:24:00PM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:28 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be replaced with some other
gcc-inline-defeating mechanism,
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:21 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:24:00PM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:28 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:03:34 +0530
> Here is a quick and naive smoke test for kprobes.
Thanks very much for writing this.
It will come in handy for me when I work on sparc64
kretprobe support.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
> module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be replaced with some other
> gcc-inline-defeating mechanism, or we need to export get_probe(). I
It's still unclear where noinline does not work (do you have details on that?
It
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 22:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > kernel/kprobes.c|2
> > kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
> >
>
> Can you put this somewhere else please? I know there are
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > agreed - lib/* would be the right place i think - we've got
> > lib/locking-selftest.c already.
>
> Why not test/ ?
>
> I felt a little bad about not introducing arch/x86/test/ for
> pageattr-test.c either.
yeah, test/ would be even better, and
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > kernel/kprobes.c|2
> > > kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
> > >
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > kernel/kprobes.c|2
> > kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
> >
>
> Can you put this somewhere else please? I know there are already
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> kernel/kprobes.c|2
> kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
>
Can you put this somewhere else please? I know there are already some
test files in kernel/* but imho they all belong
* Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Here is a quick and naive smoke test for kprobes. This is intended to
> just verify if some unrelated change broke the *probes subsystem. It
> is self contained, architecture
* Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is a quick and naive smoke test for kprobes. This is intended to
just verify if some unrelated change broke the *probes subsystem. It
is self contained, architecture agnostic and
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kernel/kprobes.c|2
kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
Can you put this somewhere else please? I know there are already some
test files in kernel/* but imho they all belong into
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kernel/kprobes.c|2
kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
Can you
* Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
agreed - lib/* would be the right place i think - we've got
lib/locking-selftest.c already.
Why not test/ ?
I felt a little bad about not introducing arch/x86/test/ for
pageattr-test.c either.
yeah, test/ would be even better, and then move
* Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kernel/kprobes.c|2
kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
Can you put this somewhere else please? I know there are already some
test
I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a
module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be replaced with some other
gcc-inline-defeating mechanism, or we need to export get_probe(). I
It's still unclear where noinline does not work (do you have details on that?
It
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 22:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kernel/kprobes.c|2
kernel/test_kprobes.c | 216
Can you put this somewhere else please? I know there are already
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:03:34 +0530
Here is a quick and naive smoke test for kprobes.
Thanks very much for writing this.
It will come in handy for me when I work on sparc64
kretprobe support.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here is a quick and naive smoke test for kprobes. This is intended to
just verify if some unrelated change broke the *probes subsystem. It is
self contained, architecture agnostic and isn't of any great use by itself.
This needs to be built in
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is a quick and naive smoke test for kprobes. This is intended to
just verify if some unrelated change broke the *probes subsystem. It is
self contained, architecture agnostic and isn't of any great use by itself.
This needs to be built in
28 matches
Mail list logo
