Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:56:22 +0300 | From | Kirill Tkhai <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] introduce probe_slab_address() |
| |
On 28.10.2014 18:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 08:44:51AM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote: >> В Пн, 27/10/2014 в 20:54 +0100, Oleg Nesterov пишет: > >>> +#define probe_slab_address(addr, retval) \ >>> + probe_kernel_address(addr, retval) >> >> probe_kernel_read() was arch-dependent on tree platforms: >> >> arch/blackfin/mm/maccess.c >> arch/parisc/lib/memcpy.c >> arch/um/kernel/maccess.c >> >> But now we skip these arch-dependent implementations. Is there no a problem? > > Nope, see the first patch, it makes probe_kernel_address use > __probe_kernel_read(). >
Yes, probe_kernel_read() is in [1/3], but it's not the same as __probe_kernel_read() for blackfin, for example.
It's defined as
long __weak probe_kernel_read(void *dst, const void *src, size_t size) __attribute__((alias("__probe_kernel_read")));
But blackfin's probe_kernel_read() redefines this __weak function, isn't it? Didn't get_freepointer_safe() use to call architecture's probe_kernel_read() before?
I don't see how it is called now... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |