Re: [PATCHv2] kprobes: Introduce is_kprobe_fault()

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:45 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Harvey Harrison writes:
> 
> > Use a central is_kprobe_fault() inline in kprobes.h to remove all
> > of the arch-dependant, practically identical implementations in
> > avr32, ia64, powerpc, s390, sparc64, and x86.
> 
> I don't like the name "is_kprobe_fault" since the function actually
> handles the fault - i.e. it does more than just tell the caller
> whether this is a kprobes fault.  Something like
> "handle_kprobes_fault" or "maybe_handle_kprobes_fault" would be
> better IMO.

Good point, I chose the name based simply on the usage pattern found
in all the callers.  Of your suggestions I like handle_kprobes_fault
better.

How about check_kprobes_fault?  That seems to cover what you were
getting at with maybe_handle_kprobes_fault but is shorter.  That
also fits better with the !CONFIG_KPROBES case.

Harvey



--
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/