From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752906AbXCaNCB (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:02:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752987AbXCaNCB (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:02:01 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:57501 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752904AbXCaNCA (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:02:00 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:01:49 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: "Stone, Joshua I" , "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" , Masami Hiramatsu , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Prasanna S Panchamukhi , linux-kernel , SystemTAP , Satoshi Oshima , Hideo Aoki , Yumiko Sugita , hch@infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 1/4] kprobe fast unregistration Message-ID: <20070331130149.GA18345@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , "Stone, Joshua I" , "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" , Masami Hiramatsu , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Prasanna S Panchamukhi , linux-kernel , SystemTAP , Satoshi Oshima , Hideo Aoki , Yumiko Sugita References: <20070323180527.GA13728@bambi.jf.intel.com> <16D5B9AB904B0B46B22A27002EE3A8C82793BB@scsmsx415.amr.corp.intel.com> <20070323182248.GA32364@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070323182248.GA32364@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:22:48PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Really? What possible problems can occur? The worst that occurs to > me is that if someone forgets to call the commit function, the kprobes > will still be disabled, but memory won't be recycled for a while. Exactly. It's a very unintuitive interface, exposing implementation details to the user. The array variant otoh is obvious to the user: gice me an array of probes to register/unregister and do it. > Would it be possible to allay even that concern with an automated > deferred/periodic commit? That's even worse from the user perspective interface.