From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1161 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2006 06:04:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 1133 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2006 06:04:46 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060117060446.1132.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "suparna at in dot ibm dot com" To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20060113232600.2152.jkenisto@us.ibm.com> References: <20060113232600.2152.jkenisto@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug kprobes/2152] jprobe variant to run handler instead of probed function X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 ------- Additional Comments From suparna at in dot ibm dot com 2006-01-17 06:04 ------- Subject: Re: jprobe variant to run handler instead of probed function On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 05:26:29PM -0000, anil dot s dot keshavamurthy at intel dot com wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From anil dot s dot keshavamurthy at intel dot com 2006-01-16 17:26 ------- > > Probably just calling "return" instead of "jprobe_return" from the jprobe > > handler would do the trick ? > You can't do that(at least in the current design) as jprobe_handler are > executed with preempt disabled and current_kprobe set to this probe. Hence True. Thanks for spotting that. > jprobe_handler() _must_ execute jprobe_return(), so that Kprobe code can > reverse the preempt count and clear current_kprobe. > > > > -- > > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2152 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2152 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.