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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 20:48 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-01-26 11:14:07]:
> 
> > On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 14:15 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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. 
> > 
> > That's about it, and its the normal way to do such things in kernel
> > space.
> 
> But the disadvantage would be we wont be able to share the filter
> functions. Currently i had one patch that implemented the common
> filter functions that tracers could reuse.

But you could still do that, just make then use something like:

struct uprobe_simple_consumer {
	struct uprobe_consumer consumer;
	unsigned long value;
};



--
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/