Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches

[Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Harvey,
> Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important
> to you? We can discuss about it.
> 
> > I just sent out a series of 4 patches equivalent to your patches 1-4/6
> > but based on my already unified kprobes.c/h, You may want to check your
> > handling of restored registers in trampoline_probe_handler which I found
> > when rebasing yours on top of my cleanups.  Not sure if this is
> > important, but it was a difference I found.
> > 
> > X86_32:
> > regs->cs = __KERNEL_CS | get_kernel_rpl();
> > 
> > yours:
> > regs->cs = __KERNEL_CS;
> 
> Because of kretprobe's compatibility, on x86-32 cs should be set rpl().
> But get_kernel_rpl() does not exist on x86-64.
> 

I've already ported it and sent it to you.  It's not really important to
me I just think my fine-grained patches may be of some use to see where
the differences between X86_32/64 ended up being.  Your patches end up
being just about entirely removal of ifdefs when rebased onto my
patches, so it's at least a good secondary check of your patches even
if mine don't go in.  Your patches end up being much smaller against
my version too.

I like my version slightly better because the remaining ifdefs (wrmsr,
etc) and others could be done in a few more small patches that are more
easily reviewable than your large final unification patch.

But, you know the code better than I....

Harvey

--
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/