> On Jan 25, 2019, at 1:30 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:32:43PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote: >> From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> text_mutex is currently expected to be held before text_poke() is >> called, but we kgdb does not take the mutex, and instead *supposedly* >> ensures the lock is not taken and will not be acquired by any other core >> while text_poke() is running. >> >> The reason for the "supposedly" comment is that it is not entirely clear >> that this would be the case if gdb_do_roundup is zero. > > I guess that variable name is "kgdb_do_roundup” ? Yes. Will fix. > >> This patch creates two wrapper functions, text_poke() and > > Avoid having "This patch" or "This commit" in the commit message. It is > tautologically useless. > > Also, do > > $ git grep 'This patch' Documentation/process > > for more details. Ok. >> >> +void *text_poke_kgdb(void *addr, const void *opcode, size_t len) > > text_poke_unlocked() I guess. I don't think kgdb is that special that it > needs its own function flavor. Tglx suggested this naming to prevent anyone from misusing text_poke_kdgb(). This is a very specific use-case that nobody else should need. Regards, Nadav
