On 06/20/2018 10:07 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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. Yes, I've posted it: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/19/1324 I've copied you as well :) Please have a look. Thanks, Ravi -- 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
