On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 09:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Further unification work. There is a possible behavior change on > > X86_32 here. > > > > is_IF_modifier(p->opcode) > > > > to > > > > is_IF_modifier(p->ainsn.insn) > > > > Which should be equivalent, but is not purely cosmetic as the rest of > > the unification so far. > > hm, could you split this into two, the pure-equivalence and the > possibly-modifying patch? (that way any potential breakage becomes > bisectable) Same end result, just two commits instead of one. > Sure, I'll go back through and see if the series can be cleaned up a bit as well as expand the commit message a little bit.
> also, did you manage to run/test kprobes (on 32-bit or 64-bit x86), and > it worked fine? > Sorry, I should have predicated the whole series with RFC. Currently this is compile-tested only. There is only the one patch that has any behavioral change. I believe the series also pointed out an existing bug in the 32-bit version...which I've preserved but will note in the commit messages in the respun series. In case you're interested, from the patch which unifies the definition of MAX_INSTRUCTION_SIZE: memcpy(p->ainsn.insn, p->addr, (MAX_INSN_SIZE + 1) * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)); If you compare this memcpy from arch_prepare_kprobe in 32/64 bit I'm almost sure the X86_32 version should be ... + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t) not ... * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t) Cheers, Harvey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/