On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 23:43 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Harvey Harrison wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >> Hi Harvey, > >> > >> Thank you for cleaning this up. > >> > >> Harvey Harrison wrote: > >>> Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups > >>> > >>> Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are > >>> only called once. Minor whitespace cleanup. Eliminate one > >>> supefluous return at end of void function. Reverse sense of > >>> #ifndef to be #ifdef to show the case only affects X86_32. > >> Unfortunately, to prevent kprobe recursive call, all functions which > >> is called from kprobes must be inlined or have __kprobes. > >> If __always_inline macro still work, I prefer to use it. If not, > >> it must have a __kprobe attribute like as below. > > > > I thought all static functions that were only called once were > > automatically inlined these days? Otherwise __always_inline and > > inline are exactly the same in the kernel. > > Yes, it will be (not obviously) inlined, currently. > However, IMHO, it is not fail-safe coding. >
Fair enough, you seem to have a deeper understanding of the code than I, I'd suggest __kprobes as a better annotation for this purpose though. > I think we might better take care of someone who will modify the code > in the future. If they call those functions from other place, > it will not be inlined, and may be placed out of .kprobes.text. > In that case, we can not prevent inserting kprobes in those functions. > > Thus, I recommend you to add __kprobes on those functions. > That indicates which functions will be used by kprobes and gives > hints how to write functions which will be called from kprobes. > (And also, it simplifies coding rule.) Patch forthcoming. 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/
