This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [RFC]Moving kprobe [dis]arming into arch specific
- From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>
- To: rusty dot lynch at intel dot com
- Cc: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com, anil dot s dot keshavamurthy at intel dot com
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:11:58 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC]Moving kprobe [dis]arming into arch specific
- References: <200505101822.j4AIMIs0004974@linux.jf.intel.com>
- Reply-to: ananth at in dot ibm dot com
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:22:18AM -0700, rusty.lynch@intel.com wrote:
Hi Rusty,
.....
> I thought arch_[dis]arm_kprobe was the most descriptive of what was really
> happening, but each of the architectures already had a disarm_kprobe() function
> that was really a "disarm and do some other clean-up items as needed when
> you stumble across a recursive kprobe." So... I took the liberty of changing
> the code that was calling disarm_kprobe() to call arch_disarm_kprobe(), and
> then do the cleanup in the block of code dealing with the recursive kprobe
> case.
The changes look good.
> So far I have tested on i386 and x86_64, but don't have access to a sparc64
> or ppc64 to verify the patch is correct. For those familiar with sparc64 and
> ppc64, please look over my changes of any obvious problems (or better yet
> try the patch out.)
I gave it a spin on ppc64 and it works fine!
Ananth