Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:00:18 +0300 | From | Kirill Tkhai <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] introduce probe_slab_address() |
| |
On 28.10.2014 20:56, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > 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.
Vise versa, I mean __probe_kernel_read() is in [1/3].
> 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/
|  |