On Wednesday 18 January 2012 05:47:49 Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 January 2012 04:02:32 Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > > Can we use existing SET_IP() instead of set_instruction_pointer() ?
> > >
> > > Oleg had already commented about this in one his uprobes reviews.
> > >
> > > The GET_IP/SET_IP available in include/asm-generic/ptrace.h doesnt work
> > > on all archs. Atleast it doesnt work on powerpc when I tried it.
> >
> > so migrate the arches you need over to it.
>
> One question that could be asked is why arent we using instruction_pointer
> instead of GET_IP since instruction_pointer is being defined in 25
> places and with references in 120 places.
i think you misunderstand the point. {G,S}ET_IP() is the glue between the
arch's pt_regs struct and the public facing API. the only people who should
be touching those macros are the ptrace core. instruction_pointer() and
instruction_pointer_set() are the API that asm/ptrace.h exports to the rest of
the tree.
-mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.