Re: [PATCH v5 7/14] x86 support for Uprobes

From: Srikar Dronamraju
Date: Tue Jun 15 2010 - 08:17:15 EST

> > >
> > > I'm no x86 port guru, but this looks rather worriesome to me. Why does
> > > do_notify_resume have different calling conventions on 32 vs 64-bit?
> > > And if there is a good reason that 32-bit has them disabled, why is
> > > enabling them in the middle of do_notify_resume okay?
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up. I have no idea about why do_notify_resume()
> > gets called with interrupts disabled in 32 bit.
> Perhaps just because there is no reason to explicitly enable irqs?
> > I would be happy to know
> > the reason and rework based on inputs. I did query a few people about
> > this but I havent got an answer on why we they are disabled on 32 bit and
> > if its Okay to enable at this place.
> I think it is OK to enable interrupts. do_notify_resume() calls do_signal()
> which enables them anyway.
> But there is another question I already asked. Why the code uses
> native_irq_enable()? IIRC, you explained that local_irq_enable() doesn't
> work for unkown reason. This is strange, and imho should be explained.

local_irq_enable() translates to raw_local_irq_enable().
However raw_local_irq_enable on x86 seems to depend on CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
On a machine, where CONFIG_PARAVIRT was defined, local_irq_enable
translates to something other than native_irq_enable.
It translates to PVOP_VCALLEE0(pv_irq_ops.irq_enable);

Is it okay to use local_irq_enable() and then make CONFIG_UPROBES depend

> And I do not see a need to disable irqs again.
> Oleg.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at