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: Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis dot org>
- To: balbir at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- 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 13:40:37 -0400
- 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> <20110316055138.GI3410@balbir.in.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 11:21 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * 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?
>
Ah, looking at the code, I guess comments are not needed.
Thanks,
-- Steve