From: Keshavamurthy Anil S <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>
To: Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@in.ibm.com>
Cc: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
systemtap@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kprobes- robust fault handling for i386
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:02:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060227170155.A5891@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060227092535.GC6586@in.ibm.com>; from prasanna@in.ibm.com on Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:55:35PM +0530
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:55:35PM +0530, Prasanna S Panchamukhi wrote:
> Anil,
>
>
> For your convenience I have splitup the patches, please find
> then below.
Thanks for the splitting.
> In general splitting of patches is a good idea, but here I think
> splitting does not make much difference, since post_handler changes
> are only few lines. Correct me if I am wrong.
Since you are introducing lots of kprobes states it is good
to split the patches according the pre/post/ss handling as
the reviewer can understand why each kprobes state is needed.
Remember the lesser the states easier to understand.
>
> Renaming states is a good idea, but we should do it independent of fault
> handling. So how about doing it once we have robust fault handling in
> place.
Sure, can be done later too.
>
>
Over all the the logic seems to good, except I did not
did not see where you are handling multiple sequenital faults
that can happen in pre/post handler. i.e once the fault happens
in say pre_handler, then the status goes to KPROBE_HIT_FAULT,
and say this fault is recovered and the pre_handler continues and
again before returning from pre_handler their can be another fault
and this fault is not being handed currently.
Also I did not see why you are not changing the status back to
original status if the fault is recovered properly. i.e
KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE -> KPROBE_HIT_FAULT. In KPROBE_HIT_FAULT state
if this recovers, why not change this back to KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE?
Anyreason for not doing this?
-Anil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-28 1:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-24 19:17 Keshavamurthy, Anil S
2006-02-27 9:24 ` Prasanna S Panchamukhi
2006-02-27 9:25 ` [PATCH] Kprobes- robust fault handling for i386 post_handler changes Prasanna S Panchamukhi
2006-02-28 1:02 ` Keshavamurthy Anil S [this message]
2006-02-28 14:37 ` [PATCH] Kprobes- robust fault handling for i386 Prasanna S Panchamukhi
2006-02-28 20:25 ` Keshavamurthy Anil S
2006-03-01 14:49 ` Prasanna S Panchamukhi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-02-23 0:44 Keshavamurthy, Anil S
2006-02-22 10:41 Mao, Bibo
2006-02-23 8:58 ` Prasanna S Panchamukhi
2006-02-23 12:40 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2006-02-23 13:17 ` Prasanna S Panchamukhi
2006-02-22 7:11 Prasanna S Panchamukhi
2006-02-24 1:33 ` Jim Keniston
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060227170155.A5891@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--to=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=prasanna@in.ibm.com \
--cc=systemtap@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).