This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: uprobes and empty functions
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 14:48 -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 02:29 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
> > On 11/02/2010 02:02 PM, Jim Keniston wrote:
> >> Thanks. The only problem I see is that if setup_uprobe_post_ssout()
> >> rejects the instruction, you need to report that via printk().
> >
> > OK, I added a printk report, ported it to uprobes "1", and pushed it out
> > as commit 33d60a8. Let's hope I didn't break the world...
>
> Forgot the other thing I wanted to ask...
>
> uprobes/uprobes_i386.c doesn't have the same check_legacy_prefix() logic
> as the other x86 variants, making my new prefix checks somewhat moot
> there. Is there any reason not to add this same prefix-skipping to the
> old i386 uprobes?
>
> Josh
No, no reason. The uprobes_i386.c code is a few months older than the
x86_64 version, and years older than the combined-x86 versions.
Thanks for the fixes.
Jim