Re: [tip:x86/mm] x86, mm, kprobes: fault.c, simplifynotify_page_fault()

[Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:31:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Author:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > > AuthorDate: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:42:57 +0100
> > > Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > > CommitDate: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:09:42 +0100
> > > 
> > > x86, mm, kprobes: fault.c, simplify notify_page_fault()
> > > 
> > > Impact: cleanup
> > > 
> > > Remove an #ifdef from notify_page_fault(). The function still
> > > compiles to nothing in the !CONFIG_KPROBES case.
> > > 
> > > Introduce kprobes_built_in() and kprobe_fault_handler() helpers
> > > to allow this - they returns 0 if !CONFIG_KPROBES.
> > > 
> > > No code changed:
> > > 
> > >    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> > >    4618	     32	     24	   4674	   1242	fault.o.before
> > >    4618	     32	     24	   4674	   1242	fault.o.after
> > 
> > It seems good for me. Thank you for cleanup!
> > 
> > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> another very small thing, while we are discussing kprobes:
> 
> I always found that the __kprobes annotation is very confusingly 
> euphemistic: what those annotations really mean is not 
> 'kprobes', but 'no kprobes'.

Right!

> So how about renaming __kprobes to __nokprobes, similar to how 
> we have the notrace attribute?
> 
> We have about 350 __kprobes annotations in the kernel, so 
> renaming it now would not be practical - but any objections 
> against me sending Linus a rename patch somewhere late in the 
> next merge window that just does this rename?

No issues with that.

Ananth
--
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/