Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> These are:
>>
>> -add stack_addr() macro
>> -I prefer the table defintion macros in mine as it avoids the need to
>> cast the pointer passed to test_bit, but if you want them
>> to be u32 as in your patch, I can change it.
>
> please do so. we'd like to reduce ifdefs as
Hi Harvey,
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 18:14 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Hi Harvey,
>>
>> Harvey Harrison wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
Hi Harvey,
Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important
to you
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 18:14 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Harvey,
>
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Harvey,
> >> Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important
> >> to you? We can discuss about it.
> >
> > I'v
Hi Harvey,
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Hi Harvey,
>> Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important
>> to you? We can discuss about it.
>>
>>> I just sent out a series of 4 patches equivalent to your patches 1-4/6
>>> but
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Harvey,
> Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important
> to you? We can discuss about it.
>
> > I just sent out a series of 4 patches equivalent to your patches 1-4/6
> > but based on my already unified kprobes.c/h
Hi Harvey,
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:28 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Hi Harvey,
>> If you mention about a relative jump which is inserted by
>> resume_execution(), I think you might misunderstand that relative jump.
>>
>> The size of that relative jump, which will be e
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:28 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Harvey,
> If you mention about a relative jump which is inserted by
> resume_execution(), I think you might misunderstand that relative jump.
>
> The size of that relative jump, which will be embedded by kprobe-booster, is
> 5-bytes(n
Hi Harvey,
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 19:52 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-15 14:12:04]:
>>
>>
>> Hi Ingo, Harvey
>>
>> In file include/asm-x86/kprobes_32.h
>> typedef u8 kprobe_opcode_t;
>> hence sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t) turns out
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 17:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > cool! Please Cc: lkml and Harvey as well so that there's less
> > > overlap in unification work - Harvey spent quite some time unifying
> > > and cleaning up the kprobes code during the
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 19:52 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-15 14:12:04]:
>
>
> Hi Ingo, Harvey
>
> In file include/asm-x86/kprobes_32.h
> typedef u8 kprobe_opcode_t;
> hence sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t) turns out to be 1.
>
> Hence
>
> memcpy(p->ainsn.i
Hi Ingo,
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> cool! Please Cc: lkml and Harvey as well so that there's less
>>> overlap in unification work - Harvey spent quite some time unifying
>>> and cleaning up the kprobes code during the past week.
>> Should I rewrite
* Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > cool! Please Cc: lkml and Harvey as well so that there's less
> > overlap in unification work - Harvey spent quite some time unifying
> > and cleaning up the kprobes code during the past week.
>
> Should I rewrite it based on current git tree?
Hi Ingo,
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Masami,
>
> * Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Harvey and Ingo,
>>
>> I'm working on another version of patches for unification.
>> Currently cleaning up the patches.
>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/systemtap/2007-q4/msg00457.html
>> I'll cleanup
Hi Ingo, Harvey
In file include/asm-x86/kprobes_32.h
typedef u8 kprobe_opcode_t;
hence sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t) turns out to be 1.
Hence
memcpy(p->ainsn.insn, p->addr, MAX_INSN_SIZE * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
is correct.
--
Regards
Srikar
>
> * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Masami,
* Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Harvey and Ingo,
>
> I'm working on another version of patches for unification.
> Currently cleaning up the patches.
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/systemtap/2007-q4/msg00457.html
> I'll cleanup and repost it today.
cool! Please Cc: lk
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-15 14:12:04]:
Hi Ingo, Harvey
In file include/asm-x86/kprobes_32.h
typedef u8 kprobe_opcode_t;
hence sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t) turns out to be 1.
Hence
memcpy(p->ainsn.insn, p->addr, MAX_INSN_SIZE * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
is correct.
--
Regards
Srik
Hi Harvey and Ingo,
I'm working on another version of patches for unification.
Currently cleaning up the patches.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/systemtap/2007-q4/msg00457.html
I'll cleanup and repost it today.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you compare t
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you compare this memcpy from arch_prepare_kprobe in 32/64 bit I'm
> almost sure the X86_32 version should be
>
> ... + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)
>
> not
>
> ... * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)
good point. I've Cc:-ed the top authors of kprobes.c. Cou
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 09:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Further unification work. There is a possible behavior change on
> > X86_32 here.
> >
> > is_IF_modifier(p->opcode)
> >
> > to
> >
> > is_IF_modifier(p->ainsn.insn)
> >
> > Which should
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Further unification work. There is a possible behavior change on
> X86_32 here.
>
> is_IF_modifier(p->opcode)
>
> to
>
> is_IF_modifier(p->ainsn.insn)
>
> Which should be equivalent, but is not purely cosmetic as the rest of
> the unification
20 matches
Mail list logo
