On 2014/12/8 21:22, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 20:31 +0800, Wang Nan wrote: >> On 2014/12/8 20:06, Wang Nan wrote: >>> On 2014/12/8 19:50, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 19:15 +0800, Wang Nan wrote: >>>>> On 2014/12/8 19:04, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 14:28 +0800, Wang Nan wrote: >> [...] >>>> >>>> so another CPU could find and delete next before this one has finished >>>> doing so. Would the list end up in a consistent state where no loops >>>> develop and no probes are missed? I don't know the answer and a full >>>> analysis would be complicated, but my gut feeling is that if a cpu can >>>> observe the links in the list in an inconsistent state then only bad >>>> things can result. >>>> >>> >>> I see the problem. >>> >>> I'm thinking about making core.c and opt-arm.c to share stop_machine() code. >>> stop_machine() is required when removing breakpoint, so I'd like to define >>> a "remove_breakpoint" function in core.c and make opt-arm.c to call it. >>> Do you think it is a good idea? >>> >>> >> >> What I mean is something like this: > > Yes, that should work, though as remove_breakpoint is a globally visible > symbol, I suggest a less generic name for it, perhaps > remove_kprobe_breakpoint ? >
I don't think it is globally visible. Only files in arm/probes/kprobes can include "core.h". However, I do agree that remove_breakpoint() is not a good name. In my v15 patch, I'd like to rename it to kprobe_remove_breakpoint(), due to may of names defined in core.h are called kprobes_xxx. Thank you! -- 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/
