Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1593559 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-06 19:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-07 00:10 +0100 |
| Articles | 5 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm: kprobes: remove kprobe_exceptions_notify "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-03-06 19:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm: kprobes: remove kprobe_exceptions_notify Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk> - 2017-03-06 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm: kprobes: remove kprobe_exceptions_notify "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-03-06 20:10 +0100
[PATCH 1/2] arm: kprobes: remove kprobe_exceptions_notify "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-03-06 20:10 +0100
[PATCH 2/2] arm64: kprobes: remove kprobe_exceptions_notify "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-03-07 00:10 +0100
| From | "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 19:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm: kprobes: remove kprobe_exceptions_notify |
| Message-ID | <ti5oJ-3Ar-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On 2017/02/08 01:24AM, Naveen N Rao wrote: > ... as the weak variant will do. > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 10 ---------- > arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 6 ------ > 2 files changed, 16 deletions(-) With the generic changes in this series now in -rc1, can you please pick this up? Thanks, Naveen
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ti5RL-3Nc-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1593559 |
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:37:20PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > On 2017/02/08 01:24AM, Naveen N Rao wrote: > > ... as the weak variant will do. > > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 10 ---------- > > arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 6 ------ > > 2 files changed, 16 deletions(-) > > With the generic changes in this series now in -rc1, can you please pick > this up? It would've been nice to have been in the To: or Cc: on this patch, I suspect everyone on the ARM side ignored this series (I certainly didn't notice it, and I suspect the ARM64 folk didn't notice it for exactly the same reason.) In any case, this patch needs to be split - ARM and ARM64 are maintained separately (as stated in MAINTAINERS), and patches go via different trees. Please resubmit with the patch split between the architectures and proper recipients in the headers. Thanks. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ti6b8-49O-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1593586 |
On 2017/03/06 06:38PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:37:20PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > > On 2017/02/08 01:24AM, Naveen N Rao wrote: > > > ... as the weak variant will do. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 10 ---------- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 6 ------ > > > 2 files changed, 16 deletions(-) > > > > With the generic changes in this series now in -rc1, can you please pick > > this up? > > It would've been nice to have been in the To: or Cc: on this patch, > I suspect everyone on the ARM side ignored this series (I certainly > didn't notice it, and I suspect the ARM64 folk didn't notice it for > exactly the same reason.) > > In any case, this patch needs to be split - ARM and ARM64 are > maintained separately (as stated in MAINTAINERS), and patches go via > different trees. Please resubmit with the patch split between the > architectures and proper recipients in the headers. Got it. Please find the updated patches in this thread. Thanks, Naveen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-06 20:10 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH 1/2] arm: kprobes: remove kprobe_exceptions_notify |
| Message-ID | <ti6b8-49O-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1593606 |
Commit fc62d0207ae0 ("kprobes: Introduce weak variant of
kprobe_exceptions_notify()") introduces a generic empty version of the
function for architectures that don't need special handling, like arm.
As such, remove the arch/arm/ specific handler.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 10 ----------
1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c
index b6dc9d838a9a..4a548b99965b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c
+++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c
@@ -392,16 +392,6 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr)
return 0;
}
-int __kprobes kprobe_exceptions_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
- unsigned long val, void *data)
-{
- /*
- * notify_die() is currently never called on ARM,
- * so this callback is currently empty.
- */
- return NOTIFY_DONE;
-}
-
/*
* When a retprobed function returns, trampoline_handler() is called,
* calling the kretprobe's handler. We construct a struct pt_regs to
--
2.11.1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 00:10 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH 2/2] arm64: kprobes: remove kprobe_exceptions_notify |
| Message-ID | <ti9Vn-6Tr-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1593606 |
Commit fc62d0207ae0 ("kprobes: Introduce weak variant of
kprobe_exceptions_notify()") introduces a generic empty version of the
function for architectures that don't need special handling, like arm64.
As such, remove the arch/arm64/ specific handler.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
index 2a07aae5b8a2..c5c45942fb6e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
@@ -372,12 +372,6 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr)
return 0;
}
-int __kprobes kprobe_exceptions_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
- unsigned long val, void *data)
-{
- return NOTIFY_DONE;
-}
-
static void __kprobes kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct kprobe *p, *cur_kprobe;
--
2.11.1
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web