Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 4/20] 4: uprobes: Adding andremove a uprobe in a rb tree.

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-01-25 14:56:13]:

> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 15:28 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > +struct uprobe_consumer {
> > +       int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs);
> > +       /*
> > +        * filter is optional; If a filter exists, handler is run
> > +        * if and only if filter returns true.
> > +        */
> > +       bool (*filter)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct task_struct *task);
> > +
> > +       struct uprobe_consumer *next;
> > +       void *fvalue;   /* filter value */
> > +}; 
> 
> Since you pass in a pointer to this structure at register_uprobe() its
> user allocated, hence you can remove the fvalue thing and let the user
> embed this in a larger struct if needed, the filter functions can then
> use container_of() to get at the larger data structure.


Okay, Will do, but Is there a reason for moving the fvalue out of the
uprobe_consumer? Except for reducing the size of the structure, I am
unable to see advantage.
--
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/