From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752375AbeEROOg (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2018 10:14:36 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:40328 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751384AbeEROOc (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2018 10:14:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 23:14:28 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Andrew Morton , Steven Rostedt , Laura Abbott , Josef Bacik , Alexei Starovoitov , Ravi Bangoria Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v3 4/7] kprobes: Ignore break_handler Message-Id: <20180518231428.e11eac5fe4d825b3ece37590@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20180518062034.GB27960@gmail.com> References: <152651499561.25583.14488389770693278906.stgit@devbox> <152651511510.25583.17622383189254834099.stgit@devbox> <20180518062034.GB27960@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 18 May 2018 08:20:34 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > Ignore break_handler related code because it was only > > used by jprobe and jprobe is removed. > > I changed this description to: > > ============ > Subject: kprobes: Don't call the ->break_handler() in generic kprobes code > > Don't call the ->break_handler() from the core kprobes code, because it was only > used by jprobes which got removed. > > ( In a followup patch we'll remove the remaining calls in low level > arch handlers as well and remove the callback altogether. ) > ============ > > Please try to be a lot less vague in changelogs when it's possible and relevant! > > I.e. saying "Ignore break_handler related code" is annoyingly vague, it doesn't > explain things well at all. Saying "Don't call the ->break_handler()" is just as > compact, yet it also makes it very clear what's done in the patch... OK, I'll try to describe more concretely and straightforwardly. Thank you for telling me your advice!! > > Thanks, > > Ingo -- Masami Hiramatsu