On 11/27, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > (2013/11/27 2:23), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 11/26, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >> > >> (2013/11/26 4:29), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > >>> +#define PSEUDO_REG_OFFSET 4096 /* arbitrary value > > >>> MAX_REG_OFFSET */ > >>> + > >>> +static unsigned long probe_get_register(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned > >>> long offset) > >>> +{ > >>> + if (offset < PSEUDO_REG_OFFSET) > >>> + return regs_get_register(regs, offset); > >>> + > >>> + return pseudo_reg_table[offset - PSEUDO_REG_OFFSET].fetch(); > >>> +} > >> > >> > >> Hmm, I don't like this, since fetch_reg is the most frequently > >> used fetch method, and it actually uses the offset in different > >> way. > > > > Sure, this overloads the usage of FETCH_MTD_reg/offset. > > > > And btw, yes, the naming is ugly (I mean pseudo_*). But why this > > is bad? This is cheap and simple. > > I think it's not simple. The code looks short, but not well > self-described. It is "hidden" in the structure, and double-meaning.
Yes, I agree. And the ugly naming doesn't make it more clear/clean. I'll try to cleanup this somehow and resend. Perhaps I should start with 2/2 which generalizes FETCH_MTD_reg and kills FETCH_MTD_retval. Or at least generalizes FETCH_MTD_retval. > >> Why don't you make another fetch function for vars? > > > > This is what I tried to avoid ;) I do not want to add another > > FETCH_MTD_. To me, this looks like unnecessary complication and > > bloat (but see below). > > I see, perhaps, it is a time to introduce independent fetch > method implementation. Current one is not sophisticated > nor generic Yes, yes, I agree. But until then I do not want to complicate/blow this code to implement $current. Thanks. Oleg. -- 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/