Hi, On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:52:47 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > Hi Jisheng, > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:02:59 +0000 > Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:53:58 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > > > > > This is to make the x86 kprobe_ftrace_handler() more common so that > > > > the code could be reused in future. > > > > > > While I agree with the change in general, I can't find anything which > > > reuses that code. So the change log is pretty useless and I have no idea > > > how this is related to the rest of the series. > > > > In v1, this code is moved from x86 to common kprobes.c [1] > > But I agree with Masami, consolidation could be done when arm64 kprobes > > on ftrace is stable. > > We'll revisit to consolidate the code after we got 3rd or 4th clones. > > > > > In v2, actually, the arm64 version's kprobe_ftrace_handler() is the same > > as x86's, the only difference is comment, e.g > > > > /* Kprobe handler expects regs->ip = ip + 1 as breakpoint hit */ > > > > while in arm64 > > > > /* Kprobe handler expects regs->pc = ip + 1 as breakpoint hit */ > > As Peter pointed, on arm64, is that really 1 or 4 bytes? > This part is heavily depends on the processor software-breakpoint > implementation. Per my understanding, the "+1" here means "+ one kprobe_opcode_t". > > > > > > > W/ above, any suggestion about the suitable change log? > > I think you just need to keep the first half of the description. > Since this patch itself is not related to the series, could you update > the description and resend it as a single cleanup patch out of the series? > Got it. Will do today. Thanks a lot
