Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] uprobes: Add uprobes support for ARM

[Jon Medhurst (Tixy)]

On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 15:17 -0500, David Long wrote:
> Masami/Tixy,
> 
> As I just noted in a previous email the kprobes.h thing has come back to 
> haunt me.  Something more is needed in my last patchset.  Tixy's 
> suggestion regarding the arch_specific_insn structure:
> 
> > However, I also wonder if we should instead leave arch_specific_insn as
> > a kprobes specific structure and on ARM define it in terms of a new more
> > generic 'struct probe_insn'? The drawback with that is that we'd
> > probably end up with a struct just containing a single member which
> > seems a bit redundant:
> >
> > struct arch_specific_insn {
> > 	struct probe_insn pinsn;
> > };
> >
> > Thought's anyone?
> 
> ...got me thinking.  When I do as he suggests and create a new 
> arch-specific structure for sharing between kprobes and uprobes then it 
> turns out simply #define'ing the arch_specific_insn structure tag to the 
> new structure tag in arch/arm/include/kprobes.h makes everything happy. 
>   When KPROBES is not configured that include file is (still) not 
> included and the generic kprobes.h include file still continues to make 
> a dummy structure for it.  My question is:  Is it too hacky to use a 
> #define for a structure tag this way?

I can't think of any technical reason why this wouldn't work and I see
you've have implemented this method in the latest uprobes patches [1].

It does mean that would be able to progress with ARM uprobes if there is
no immediate enthusiasm for making kprobes/uprobes more unified at the
generic kernel layers.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-December/219463.html

-- 
Tixy


--
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/