Re: [PATCH v7 3.2-rc2 4/30] uprobes: Define hooks for mmap/munmap.

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 21:52 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> The rules that I am using are: 
> 
> mmap_uprobe() increments the count if 
>         - it successfully adds a breakpoint.
>         - it not add a breakpoint, but sees that there is a underlying
>           breakpoint (via a read_opcode call).
> 
> munmap_uprobe() decrements the count if 
>         - it sees a underlying breakpoint,  (via  a read_opcode call)
>         - Subsequent unregister_uprobe wouldnt find the breakpoint
>           unless a mmap_uprobe kicks in, since the old vma would be
>           dropped just after munmap_uprobe.
> 
> register_uprobe increments the count if:
>         - it successfully adds a breakpoint.
> 
> unregister_uprobe decrements the count if:
>         - it sees a underlying breakpoint and removes successfully. 
>                         (via a read_opcode call)
>         - Subsequent munmap_uprobe wouldnt find the breakpoint
>           since there is no underlying breakpoint after the
>           breakpoint removal. 

The problem I'm having is that such stuff isn't included in the patch
set.

We've got both comments in the C language and Changelog in our patch
system, yet you consistently fail to use either to convey useful
information on non-trivial bits like this.

This leaves the reviewer wondering if you've actually considered stuff
properly, then me actually finding bugs in there does of course
undermine that even further.

What I really would like is for this patch set not to have such subtle
stuff at all, esp. at first. Once its in and its been used a bit we can
start optimizing and add subtle crap like this.


--
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/