Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Uprobes v3

[Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 03:39:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

Yes we know what to do, but I am just trying to get clarity if its
possible at all, since Mathieu was pretty sure that the hoops aren't
necessary...

Ananth
--
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/