On 06/07/2019 08:36 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/7/19 3:34 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> +static nokprobe_inline bool kprobe_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
>> + unsigned int trap)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed
>> + * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
>> + */
>> + if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) {
>> + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap))
>> + ret = 1;
>> + }
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
> Nits: Other that taking the nice, readable, x86 one and globbing it onto
> a single line, looks OK to me. It does seem a _bit_ silly to go to the
> trouble of converting to 'bool' and then using 0/1 and an 'int'
> internally instead of true/false and a bool, though. It's also not a
Changing to 'bool'...
> horrible thing to add a single line comment to this sucker to say:
>
> /* returns true if kprobes handled the fault */
>
Picking this in-code comment.
> In any case, and even if you don't clean any of this up:
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com>
>
Thanks !
