[PATCH v6 00/14] uprobes: Add uprobes support for ARM
dave.long at linaro.org
Mon Mar 3 05:08:06 EST 2014
On 03/03/14 01:23, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> It should be me who should take the blame for this and not Oleg. This
> was discussed more than couple of times. I can recollect couple of
> discussions here.
I wasn't trying to assign blame to anyone, I was just soliciting an
opinion from the last uprobes maintainer I had a conversation with.
Thanks for the links.
> I know there were more discussions on this, but I cant dig them out at
> this time. Finally it was decided that
> 1. Users shouldnt have to select more than one config to select Uprobes.
> 2. There was no point in selecting Uprobes and not having Uprobe_event
> and vice versa.
> From the above, If a user chose UPROBE_EVENT, (which is the interface
> for uprobes), we would automatically assume that he wants to use Uprobes
>> like "select" is used in part maybe just to avoid the recursive
>> dependency error that would be generated if "depends on" were used
>> in both places.
> We did "Select Uprobes" not because of avoiding recursive dependency but
> as told above, to select the framework, given that user has chosen the
> framework. We dont want to give a choice to user to choose uprobe_event
> but not choose Uprobes or vice versa.
I suppose that's more to the point.
>> However I don't think UPROBES should be dependent on
>> UPROBE_EVENT, only the other way around. As RK noted in previous
> Whats the point of having the framework(Uprobes) without an interface?
My comment was based only in the fact it built successfully that way on
both x86 and ARM. If there's no way to access the functionality without
both selected then I suppose it does make sense to not allow that
configuration. Maybe it's time to remove one of these config symbols.
I didn't see anything in the email history on this that says that would
be a bad idea. I'll try and come up with a patch.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel