On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 20:24:01 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> As for "-= tu->offset"... Can't we avoid it? User-space needs to calculate
>> the "@" argument anyway, why it can't also substruct this offset?
>>
>> Or perhaps we can change parse_probe_arg("@") to update "param" ? Yes,
>> in this case it needs another argument, not sure...
>
> Or,
>
>> + if (is_ret_probe(tu)) {
>> + saved_ip = instruction_pointer(regs);
>> + instruction_pointer_set(func);
>> + }
>> store_trace_args(...);
>> + if (is_ret_probe(tu))
>> + instruction_pointer_set(saved_ip);
>
> we can put "-= tu->offset" here.
I don't think I get the point.
>
> Or. Perhaps we can leave "case '@'" in parse_probe_arg() and
> FETCH_MTD_memory alone. You seem to agree that "absolute address"
> can be useful anyway.
Yes, but it's only meaningful to process-wide tracing sessions IMHO.
>
> Instead, perhaps we can add FETCH_MTD_memory_do_fancy_addr_translation,
> and, say, the new "case '*'" in parse_probe_arg() should add all the
> neccessary info as f->data (like, say, FETCH_MTD_symbol).
Could you elaborate this more?
>
> But, just in case, I do not have a strong opinion. Just I think it
> is better to discuss every choice we have.
Okay. I really appreciate your reviews.
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/
