Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Uprobes v3

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 18:57 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> Now, as long as we have the housekeeping code to handle the
> possibility of a thread hitting the said breakpoint when its being
> removed, is it safe to assume atomicity for replacing one byte of
> possibly a longer instruction? 

Dunno I'm not a hardware guy, but the issue is so simple to side-step
I'm not sure why you're arguing for relying on these special semantics.



--
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/