[RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 4/20] 4: uprobes: Adding and remove a uprobe in a rb tree.
Srikar Dronamraju
srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Wed Jan 26 08:52:00 GMT 2011
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2011-01-25 14:56:13]:
> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 15:28 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > +struct uprobe_consumer {
> > + int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs);
> > + /*
> > + * filter is optional; If a filter exists, handler is run
> > + * if and only if filter returns true.
> > + */
> > + bool (*filter)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct task_struct *task);
> > +
> > + struct uprobe_consumer *next;
> > + void *fvalue; /* filter value */
> > +};
>
> Since you pass in a pointer to this structure at register_uprobe() its
> user allocated, hence you can remove the fvalue thing and let the user
> embed this in a larger struct if needed, the filter functions can then
> use container_of() to get at the larger data structure.
Okay, Will do, but Is there a reason for moving the fvalue out of the
uprobe_consumer? Except for reducing the size of the structure, I am
unable to see advantage.
More information about the Systemtap
mailing list