On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 21:52 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > The rules that I am using are: > > mmap_uprobe() increments the count if > - it successfully adds a breakpoint. > - it not add a breakpoint, but sees that there is a underlying > breakpoint (via a read_opcode call). > > munmap_uprobe() decrements the count if > - it sees a underlying breakpoint, (via a read_opcode call) > - Subsequent unregister_uprobe wouldnt find the breakpoint > unless a mmap_uprobe kicks in, since the old vma would be > dropped just after munmap_uprobe. > > register_uprobe increments the count if: > - it successfully adds a breakpoint. > > unregister_uprobe decrements the count if: > - it sees a underlying breakpoint and removes successfully. > (via a read_opcode call) > - Subsequent munmap_uprobe wouldnt find the breakpoint > since there is no underlying breakpoint after the > breakpoint removal. The problem I'm having is that such stuff isn't included in the patch set. We've got both comments in the C language and Changelog in our patch system, yet you consistently fail to use either to convey useful information on non-trivial bits like this. This leaves the reviewer wondering if you've actually considered stuff properly, then me actually finding bugs in there does of course undermine that even further. What I really would like is for this patch set not to have such subtle stuff at all, esp. at first. Once its in and its been used a bit we can start optimizing and add subtle crap like this. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href