On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:41:53AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 18:59 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
quoted
On 07/26, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
quoted
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <redacted>
This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
I am just curious why this series was ignored by powerpc maintainers...
Because it arrived too late for the previous merge window considering my
limited bandwidth for reviewing things and that nobody else seems to
have reviewed it :-)
It's still on track for the next one, and I'm hoping to dedicate most of
next week going through patches & doing a powerpc -next.
Thanks Ben!
quoted
Of course I can not review this code, I know nothing about powerpc,
but the patches look simple/straightforward.
Paul, Benjamin?
Just one question... Shouldn't arch_uprobe_pre_xol() forbid to probe
UPROBE_SWBP_INSN (at least) ?
(I assume that emulate_step() can't handle this case but of course I
do not understand arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c)
Note that uprobe_pre_sstep_notifier() sets utask->state = UTASK_BP_HIT
without any checks. This doesn't look right if it was UTASK_SSTEP...
But again, I do not know what powepc will actually do if we try to
single-step over UPROBE_SWBP_INSN.
Ananth ?
set_swbp() will return -EEXIST to install_breakpoint if we are trying to
put a breakpoint on UPROBE_SWBP_INSN. So, the arch agnostic code itself
takes care of this case... or am I missing something?
However, I see that we need a powerpc specific is_swbp_insn()
implementation since we will have to take care of all the trap variants.
I will need to update the patches based on changes being made by Oleg
and Sebastien for the single-step issues. Will incorporate the powerpc
specific is_swbp_insn() change along with the changes required for the
single-step part and send out the next version.
Ananth