On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:47:16 +0100 Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bris...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/19 1:15 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:58:58 +0100 > > Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bris...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> +static void text_poke_bp_set_handler(void *addr, void *handler, > >> + unsigned char int3) > >> +{ > >> + bp_int3_handler = handler; > >> + bp_int3_addr = (u8 *)addr + sizeof(int3); > >> + text_poke(addr, &int3, sizeof(int3)); > >> +} > >> + > >> + > >> +static void patch_first_byte(void *addr, const void *opcode, unsigned > >> char int3) > >> +{ > >> + /* patch the first byte */ > >> + text_poke(addr, opcode, sizeof(int3)); > >> +} > > Hmm, perhaps get rid of the first function entirely, and just do... > > (although why have the "int3" here anyway?) > > > > These helpers were created because they were used twice in the first versions > of > this patch set. But with the change suggested by Masami, they are called only > in > the text_poke_bp_batch() now, so I am thinking to get rid of them all > (removing > this patch). > > Thoughts? > Go ahead. -- Steve