This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 7/20] 7: uprobes: store/restore original instruction.
- From: Balbir Singh <balbir at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis dot org>
- Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Stephen Wilson <wilsons at start dot ca>, Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte dot hu>, Linux-mm <linux-mm at kvack dot org>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme at infradead dot org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>, Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, Masami Hiramatsu <masami dot hiramatsu dot pt at hitachi dot com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg at redhat dot com>, LKML <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Jim Keniston <jkenisto at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, SystemTap <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:21:39 +0530
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 7/20] 7: uprobes: store/restore original instruction.
- References: <20110314133403.27435.7901.sendpatchset@localhost6.localdomain6> <20110314133522.27435.45121.sendpatchset@localhost6.localdomain6> <20110314180914.GA18855@fibrous.localdomain> <20110315092247.GW24254@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1300211862.2203.302.camel@twins> <20110315185841.GH3410@balbir.in.ibm.com> <1300217432.2250.0.camel@laptop> <1300217560.9910.296.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
- Reply-to: balbir at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> [2011-03-15 15:32:40]:
> On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 20:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 00:28 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> > > I accept the blame and am willing to fix anything incorrect found in
> > > the code.
> >
> > :-), ok sounds right, just wasn't entirely obvious when having a quick
> > look.
>
> Does that mean we should be adding a comment there?
>
This is what the current documentation looks like.
#ifdef CONFIG_MM_OWNER
/*
* "owner" points to a task that is regarded as the canonical
* user/owner of this mm. All of the following must be true in
* order for it to be changed:
*
* current == mm->owner
* current->mm != mm
* new_owner->mm == mm
* new_owner->alloc_lock is held
*/
struct task_struct __rcu *owner;
#endif
Do you want me to document the fork/exit case?
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir