On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:35:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/16, Rabin Vincent wrote: > > 2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>: > > > Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case, > > > but OK, I know nothing about arm. > > > > This old discussion about kprobes should be useful: > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-March/045755.html > > Thanks... Not sure I understand this discussion... > > And, to clarify, I am not arguing. Just curious. > > So, is this like cmov on x86? And this patch allows to not report if > the condition is not true? Or there are other issues on arm?
Yes, I guess this is like CMOV on x86. In the ARM instruction set most instructions can be conditionally executed. In order to set the probe on a conditional instruction, we use an undefined instruction with the same condition as the instruction we replace. However, it is implementation defined whether an undefined instruction with a failing condition code will trigger an undefined instruction exception or just be executed as a NOP. So for those processor implementations where we do get the undefined instruction exception even for a failing condition code, we have to ignore it in order to provide consistent behaviour. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
