On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:03:37 +0530 Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why RFC again: > > This series is different from earlier versions[1]. Earlier series > implemented this feature in trace_uprobe while this has implemented > the logic in core uprobe. Few reasons for this: > 1. One of the major reason was the deadlock between uprobe_lock and > mm->mmap inside trace_uprobe_mmap(). That deadlock was not easy to fix > because mm->mmap is not in control of trace_uprobe_mmap() and it has > to take uprobe_lock to loop over trace_uprobe list. More details can > be found at[2]. With this new approach, there are no deadlocks found > so far. > 2. Many of the core uprobe function and data-structures needs to be > exported to make earlier implementation simple. With this new approach, > reference counter logic is been implemented in core uprobe and thus > no need to export anything. A quick scan of the patches, I don't see anything controversial with them. Unless others have any qualms about it, I say repost as non RFC, and we can start doing a more thorough review. Thanks, -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
