On 2017/07/07 12:49PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 14:15:49 +0200 > > Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > * Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Also, 'function_offset_within_entry' is way too long a name, and it's > > > > > also a > > > > > minomer I think. The purpose of this function is to enforce that the > > > > > relative > > > > > 'offset' of a new probe is at the standard function entry offset: > > > > > i.e. 0 on most > > > > > architectures, and some ABI dependent constant on PowerPC, right? > > > > > > > > > > That's not at all clear from that name, plus it's a global namespace > > > > > symbol, yet > > > > > has no 'kprobes' prefix. So it should be named something like > > > > > 'kprobe_offset_valid()' or such, with an arch_kprobe_offset_valid() > > > > > counterpart. > > > > > > > > Hmm, I would rather like kprobe_within_entry(), since offset != 0 is > > > > actually valid for normal kprobe, that is kretprobe and jprobe > > > > limitation. > > > > > > But what entry? That it's within a range or that offset is always 0 is > > > really an > > > implementational detail: depending on what type of kprobe it is, it is > > > either > > > validly within the confines of the specified function symbol or not. > > > > Hmm, right. In most cases, it just checks the address (symbol+offset) is > > on the function entry. > > > > > What _really_ matters to callers is whether it's a valid kprobe to be > > > inserted > > > into that function, right? > > > > No, for that purpose, kprobes checks it in other places (kprobe_addr() and > > check_kprobe_address_safe()). This function is an additional safety check > > only for kretprobe and jprobe which must be placed on the function entry. > > (kprobe can probe function body but kretprobe and jprobes are not) > > > > > I.e. the long name came from over-specifying what is done by the function > > > - while > > > simplifying makes it actually more meaningful to read. > > > > I see, but kprobe_offset_valid is too simple. How about > > kprobe_on_func_entry()? > > Ok, kprobe_on_func_entry() works for me.
Ingo, Masami, Thanks for the review/feedback. I will accommodate these changes and post a revised version. - Naveen
