Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:16:01 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] uprobes: preparations for arm port |
| |
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/07, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uprobes.h > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uprobes.h > > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ typedef ppc_opcode_t uprobe_opcode_t; > > > struct arch_uprobe { > > > union { > > > u8 insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES]; > > > + u8 ixol[MAX_UINSN_BYTES]; > > > u32 ainsn; > > > }; > > > }; > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h > > > @@ -35,7 +35,10 @@ typedef u8 uprobe_opcode_t; > > > > > > struct arch_uprobe { > > > u16 fixups; > > > - u8 insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES]; > > > + union { > > > + u8 insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES]; > > > + u8 ixol[MAX_UINSN_BYTES]; > > > + }; > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > > > unsigned long rip_rela_target_address; > > > #endif > > > > Btw., at least on the surface, the powerpc and x86 definitions seem rather > > similar, barring senseless variations. Would it make sense to generalize > > the data structure a bit more? > > Heh. You know, I have another patch, see below. It was not tested yet, > it should be splitted into 3 changes, and we need to cleanup copy_insn() > first. I didn't sent it now because I wanted to merge the minimal > changes which allow us to avoid the new arm arch_upobe_* hooks. And of > course it needs the review. > > But in short, I do not think we should try to unify/generalize > insn/ixol.
That's OK.
> For the moment, please ignore the patch which adds the new ->ixol > member.
I didn't actually disagree with it so I pulled it - I was just wondering about those cleanliness details.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |