From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750803AbWB1GHY (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:07:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751871AbWB1GHY (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:07:24 -0500 Received: from mail4.hitachi.co.jp ([133.145.228.5]:58514 "EHLO mail4.hitachi.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750803AbWB1GHX (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:07:23 -0500 Message-ID: <4403E894.4050300@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:07:16 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton Cc: ananth@in.ibm.com, prasanna@in.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, systemtap@sources.redhat.com, jkenisto@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sugita@sdl.hitachi.co.jp, soshima@redhat.com, haoki@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH][take2][2/2] kprobe: kprobe-booster against 2.6.16-rc5 for i386 References: <43DE0A4D.20908@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> <4402E920.5080402@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> <20060227185012.037c8830.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060227185012.037c8830.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Andrew Andrew Morton wrote: > Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> Here is a patch of kprobe-booster for i386 arch against linux-2.6.16-rc5. >> The kprobe-booster patch is also under the influence of the NX-protection >> support patch. So, I fixed that. >> >> Could you replace the previous patches with these patches? > > I'd prefer not to. Once a patch has been in -mm for this long I really > prefer to not see wholesale replacements. When people do this to me I > usually turn their replacements into incremental patches so we can see what > changed. Which is useful. > > Your first patch was identical to what I already have, so I dropped that. Thank you for your advice. I will re-create an additional patch against recent -mm tree. > Your second patch made these changes: > > --- devel/arch/i386/kernel/kprobes.c~kprobe-kprobe-booster-against-2616-rc5-for 2006-02-27 18:40:29.000000000 -0800 > +++ devel-akpm/arch/i386/kernel/kprobes.c 2006-02-27 18:40:57.000000000 -0800 > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int __kprobes kprobe_handler(stru > > if (p->ainsn.boostable == 1 && > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT > - !(pre_preempt_count) && /* > + !(pre_preempt_count()) && /* > * This enables booster when the direct > * execution path aren't preempted. > */ > @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static int __kprobes kprobe_handler(stru > !p->post_handler && !p->break_handler ) { > /* Boost up -- we can execute copied instructions directly */ > reset_current_kprobe(); > - regs->eip = (unsigned long)&p->ainsn.insn; > + regs->eip = (unsigned long)p->ainsn.insn; > preempt_enable_no_resched(); > return 1; > } > > The first hunk is surely wrong - pre_preempt_count is a local unsigned > integer, not a function. I'm sorry. It's my fault. The first hunk is just a degradation. > And I'm not sure about the second hunk either - surely an `eip' should > point at an instruction, not be assigned the value of an instruction? This change is important. Because NX-protection support patch makes the ainsn.insn a pointer instead of a data structure, so now (&p->ainsn.insn) means just an address of the pointer -- not the instruction address. > So I'll drop both patches. If you have bugfixes, please make them relative > to already-merged things. Against most-recent -mm is best, as I do fix > patches up, and other people send fixes which you might not have merged > locally. And please ensure that the changes compile and run with and > without CONFIG_PREEMPT! OK. I will get the latest -mm tree and test it. And I will re-send the patch ASAP. -- Masami HIRAMATSU 2nd Research Dept. Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory E-mail: hiramatu@sdl.hitachi.co.jp