Re: [PATCH v9 3.2 0/9] Uprobes patchset with perf probe support

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 10:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> I did not suggest anything complex or intrusive: just basically 
> unify the namespace, have a single set of callbacks, and call 
> into the uprobes and perf code from those callbacks - out of the 
> sight of MM code.
> 
> That unified namespace could be called:
> 
>     event_mmap(...);
>     event_fork(...);
> 
> etc. - and from event_mmap() you could do a simple:
> 
> 	perf_event_mmap(...)
> 	uprobes_event_mmap(...)
> 
> [ Once all this is updated to use tracepoints it would turn into 
>   a notification callback chain kind of thing. ]

We keep disagreeing on this. I utterly loathe hiding stuff in notifier
lists. It makes it completely non-obvious who all does what.

Another very good reason to not do what you suggest is that
perf_event_mmap() is a pure consumer, it doesn't have a return value,
whereas uprobes_mmap() can actually fail the mmap.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/