[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 00/15] uprobes: Add uprobes support for ARM
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 15:17 -0500, David Long wrote:
> Masami/Tixy,
> As I just noted in a previous email the kprobes.h thing has come back to
> haunt me. Something more is needed in my last patchset. Tixy's
> suggestion regarding the arch_specific_insn structure:
> > However, I also wonder if we should instead leave arch_specific_insn as
> > a kprobes specific structure and on ARM define it in terms of a new more
> > generic 'struct probe_insn'? The drawback with that is that we'd
> > probably end up with a struct just containing a single member which
> > seems a bit redundant:
> >
> > struct arch_specific_insn {
> > struct probe_insn pinsn;
> > };
> >
> > Thought's anyone?
> me thinking. When I do as he suggests and create a new
> arch-specific structure for sharing between kprobes and uprobes then it
> turns out simply #define'ing the arch_specific_insn structure tag to the
> new structure tag in arch/arm/include/kprobes.h makes everything happy.
> When KPROBES is not configured that include file is (still) not
> included and the generic kprobes.h include file still continues to make
> a dummy structure for it. My question is: Is it too hacky to use a
> #define for a structure tag this way?

I can't think of any technical reason why this wouldn't work and I see
you've have implemented this method in the latest uprobes patches [1].

It does mean that would be able to progress with ARM uprobes if there is
no immediate enthusiasm for making kprobes/uprobes more unified at the
generic kernel layers.



 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-20 18:01    [W:0.053 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site