RE: [patch] Kprobes ia64 qp fix

["Lynch, Rusty" <rusty.lynch@intel.com>]

>>>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:51:45 -0700, Rusty Lynch
><rusty.lynch@intel.com> said:
>
>  Rusty> The following patch is for the 2.6.12-rc5-mm1 + my previous
>  Rusty> "Kprobes ia64 cleanup" patch that fixes a bug where a kprobe
still
>  Rusty> fires when the instruction is predicated off.  So given the
p6=0,
>  Rusty> and we have an instruction like:
>
>  Rusty> (p6) move loc1=0
>
>  Rusty> we should not be triggering the kprobe.  This is handled by
>  Rusty> carrying over the qp section of the original instruction into
>  Rusty> the break instruction.
>
>What about:
>
>	(p6) cmp.eq.unc p9,p10=rX,rY
>
>would the code handle that right?  Similary, you may want to check for
>the correct handling of instructions that cannot be predicated (such
>as "cover").
>
>	--david

Thanks, I need to look into this one.  Let me update my test to cover
both of these cases and then take another look at our logic.

    --rusty
-
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/