On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 03:20:02PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 09:21:34PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > Remove the kprobes mutex from kprobes.h, since it does not belong there. Also
> > > remove all use of this mutex in the architecture specific code, replacing it by
> > > a proper mutex lock/unlock in the architecture agnostic code.
> >
> > This is not very nice for avr32/sparc64 which have a noop arch_remove_kprobe
> > and now need to take a mutex to do nothing. Maybe you can find a nice
> > way to avoid that?
> >
> > Except for this issue making kprobes_mutex static to kprobes.c sounds like
> > a good improvement.
> >
>
> Since only unregister_kprobe() calls arch_remove_kprobe(), and only
> after having removed the struct kprobe from the kprobes list (while the
> kprobes mutex is held), I wonder if there is any need to hold the
> kprobes mutex at all when calling arch_remove_kprobe(). It turns out
> that only get_insn_slot()/free_insn_slot() (which is in
> kernel/kprobes.c, but called from arch specific code) seems to really
> use protection of this mutex.
Right.
> Would it make sense to protect the kprobe_insn_pages list with a
> new kprobe_insn_mutex, nestable in the kprobe_mutex ?
Do you think it is required after your change to make kprobe_mutex
static? But yes, for architectures that don't need a arch_remove_kprobe,
the situation is a bit odd... a mutex to do nothing. IIRC, that was the
primary reason why we made the mutex visible outside of kernel/kprobes.c
Ananth
-
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]
