Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:39 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/15/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > As previously stated, I think poking at a process's address space is an
> > utter no-go.
> >    
> 
> Why not reserve an address space range for this, somewhere near the top 
> of memory?  It doesn't have to be populated if it isn't used.

Because I think poking at a process's address space like that is gross.
Also, if its fixed size you're imposing artificial limits on the number
of possible probes.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/