| To: | David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS Kprobes: Support branch instructions probing |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:07:14 +0100 |
| Cc: | manesoni@cisco.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ananth@in.ibm.com, kamensky@cisco.com |
| In-reply-to: | <4E971FD3.2020308@cavium.com> |
| References: | <20111013090749.GB16761@cisco.com> <4E971FD3.2020308@cavium.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:28:51AM -0700, David Daney wrote: > Where is the handling for: > > case cop1_op: > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_CAVIUM_OCTEON > case lwc2_op: /* This is bbit0 on Octeon */ > case ldc2_op: /* This is bbit032 on Octeon */ > case swc2_op: /* This is bbit1 on Octeon */ > case sdc2_op: /* This is bbit132 on Octeon */ > #endif > > These are all defined in insn_has_delayslot() but not here. Which is a wonderful demonstration for why duplicating such a large function from branch.c was a baaad thing to do. Maneesh, can you refactor the code to share everything that was copied from __compute_return_epc() can be shared with kprobes? Idealy make everything a two part series, first one patch to refactor branch.c and the 2nd patch to deal with kprobes. Thanks, Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS Kprobes: Support branch instructions probing, David Daney |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS Kprobes: Support branch instructions probing, Victor Kamensky |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS Kprobes: Support branch instructions probing, David Daney |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] MIPS Kprobes: Support branch instructions probing, Victor Kamensky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |