Re: [patch] kprobes: optimize branch placement

[Andrew Morton]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:43:42 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> --- linux.orig/arch/i386/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -354,9 +354,8 @@ no_kprobe:
>   */
>  fastcall void *__kprobes trampoline_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
> -        struct kretprobe_instance *ri = NULL;
> -        struct hlist_head *head;
> -        struct hlist_node *node, *tmp;
> +        struct kretprobe_instance *ri = NULL, *tmp;
> +        struct list_head *head;
>  	unsigned long flags, orig_ret_address = 0;
>  	unsigned long trampoline_address =(unsigned long)&kretprobe_trampoline;

Wanna fix the whitespace wreckage while you're there??

i386's kprobe_handler() appears to forget to reenable preemption in the
if (p->pre_handler && p->pre_handler(p, regs)) case?
-
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/