* Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/07, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ typedef ppc_opcode_t uprobe_opcode_t;
> > > struct arch_uprobe {
> > > union {
> > > u8 insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > + u8 ixol[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > u32 ainsn;
> > > };
> > > };
> >
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > @@ -35,7 +35,10 @@ typedef u8 uprobe_opcode_t;
> > >
> > > struct arch_uprobe {
> > > u16 fixups;
> > > - u8 insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > + union {
> > > + u8 insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > + u8 ixol[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > + };
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > unsigned long rip_rela_target_address;
> > > #endif
> >
> > Btw., at least on the surface, the powerpc and x86 definitions seem rather
> > similar, barring senseless variations. Would it make sense to generalize
> > the data structure a bit more?
>
> Heh. You know, I have another patch, see below. It was not tested yet,
> it should be splitted into 3 changes, and we need to cleanup copy_insn()
> first. I didn't sent it now because I wanted to merge the minimal
> changes which allow us to avoid the new arm arch_upobe_* hooks. And of
> course it needs the review.
>
> But in short, I do not think we should try to unify/generalize
> insn/ixol.
That's OK.
> For the moment, please ignore the patch which adds the new ->ixol
> member.
I didn't actually disagree with it so I pulled it - I was just wondering
about those cleanliness details.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
