[PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc: kprobes: invoke handlers directly

[Naveen N. Rao]

On 2016/11/22 09:43PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > On 2016/11/22 02:25PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:36:41 +0530
> >> "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kprobes.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kprobes.h
> >> > index 2c9759bd..da30dc3 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kprobes.h
> >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kprobes.h
> >> > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
> >> >  #include <asm/probes.h>
> >> >  #include <asm/code-patching.h>
> >> >  
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
> >> >  #define  __ARCH_WANT_KPROBES_INSN_SLOT
> >> >  
> >> >  struct pt_regs;
> >> > @@ -127,5 +128,11 @@ struct kprobe_ctlblk {
> >> >  extern int kprobe_exceptions_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
> >> >  					unsigned long val, void *data);
> >> >  extern int kprobe_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr);
> >> > +extern int kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs);
> >> > +extern int kprobe_post_handler(struct pt_regs *regs);
> >> > +#else
> >> > +static int kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) { return 0; }
> >> > +static int kprobe_post_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) { return 0; }
> >> 
> >> These should be "static inline int kprobe_...", you lost 'inline' here.
> >> Others are OK for me.
> >
> > Ah, indeed. Good catch. Thanks.
> >  
> > Michael,
> > Would you be ok to make this change when applying this, if you're ok 
> > with the rest of the patch?
> 
> Yep done.
> 
> Why do we still need kprobe_exceptions_notify() now that it's empty?
> Just to keep the generic code happy?

Yup. I took a look to see if we can get rid of it, but there are other 
architectures that need it.

Thanks!
- Naveen