On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 09:19:22PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> writes: > > Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures > > duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a > > single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place. > > kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault() > > need not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can > > now contain upto an 'unsigned int' accommodating all possible platforms. > ... > > You've changed several of the architectures from something like above, > where it disables preemption around the call into the below: > > > Which skips everything if we're preemptible. Is that an equivalent > change? If so can you please explain why in more detail. See the discussion in v1 of this patch, which you were cc'd on. I agree the description here completely fails to mention why the change. It should mention commit a980c0ef9f6d8c. > Also why not have it return bool? > > cheers >
