Re: FW: recent kprobe work

[Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:14:53PM -0700, Lynch, Rusty wrote:
> FYI, David pointed out that the return probe patch left out a needed
> update to sparc64, but he also points out our abuse of the name space
> with function names like arch_*.

I believe Dave was referring to our use of arch_init() rather than
arch_init_kprobe() or somesuch.
> 
> Anyone have a problem with me kicking out a patch to move all the arch_*
> function names to kprobes_arch_* ?

Hmm, I'd prefer to have the _kprobe() suffix rather than the prefix, as
we do now (arch_prepare/arm/disarm_kprobe()). How about making the call
in question arch_init_kprobe/kretprobe() instead?

Ananth
> 
>     --rusty
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rusty Lynch
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:40 PM
> To: David S. Miller
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: recent kprobe work
> 
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:01:36PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > 
> > Can the folks submitting all of the kprobe stuff at least consult me
> > when they can't figure out how to implement the sparc64 kprobe variant
> > for new features?
> > 
> > Currently, the sparc64 build is broken by recent kprobe
> > changes:
> > 
> > kernel/built-in.o: In function `init_kprobes':
> > : undefined reference to `arch_init'
> > 
> > Also, can we use a more namespace friendly name for this kprobe layer
> > specific function other than "arch_init()"?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> Sorry, just an oversight.  We have several arch_* functions, maybe we
> should
> start using kprobes_arch_* instead.
> 
>     --rusty
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/