Karim Yaghmour wrote:
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and
make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)?
If you're going to go with that, then why not just use a comment-based
markup?
Comment, marker macro, flat patch, don't care much. all would work.
Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same codebase.
That was always the intent, or codebase + flat patch if really
necessary. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
It also solves the inherent problem of decided on whether
a macro-based markup is far too intrusive, since you can mildly allow
yourself more verbosity in a comment. Not only that, but if it's
comment-based, it's even forseable, though maybe not desirable, than
*everything* that deals with this type of markup be maintained out
of tree (i.e. scripts generating alternate functions and all.)
Not sure we need scripts, just a normal patch diff would do. I'm not
sure any of this alters the markup debate much ... it just would seem
to provide a simpler, faster, and more flexible way of hooking in than
kprobes.
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
