RE: FW: recent kprobe work

["Lynch, Rusty" <rusty dot lynch at intel dot com>]

>I believe Dave was referring to our use of arch_init() rather than
>arch_init_kprobe() or somesuch.
>>
>> Anyone have a problem with me kicking out a patch to move all the
arch_*
>> function names to kprobes_arch_* ?
>
>Hmm, I'd prefer to have the _kprobe() suffix rather than the prefix, as
>we do now (arch_prepare/arm/disarm_kprobe()). How about making the call
>in question arch_init_kprobe/kretprobe() instead?

How about arch_init_kprobes() <kprobes instead of kprobe>, since this
function is meant to initialize the architecture specific sections of
the kprobes infrastructure (as opposed to a specific kprobe or kretprobe
or jprobe or what ever else is next)?

... and then don't touch any of the other arch_ functions.  (I was
thinking we had some other arch_* functions that would be namespace
problems, but now I realize they all have a kprobe specific component to
them (like arch_prepare_kprobe)).

    --rusty