Re: [PATCH v4 3.0-rc2-tip 5/22] 5: x86: analyze instruction anddetermine fixups.

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 18:29 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> +static void report_bad_prefix(void)
> +{
> +       pr_warn_once("uprobes does not currently support probing "
> +               "instructions with any of the following prefixes: "
> +               "cs:, ds:, es:, ss:, lock:\n");
> +}
> +
> +static void report_bad_1byte_opcode(int mode, uprobe_opcode_t op)
> +{
> +       pr_warn_once("In %d-bit apps, "
> +               "uprobes does not currently support probing "
> +               "instructions whose first byte is 0x%2.2x\n", mode, op);
> +}
> +
> +static void report_bad_2byte_opcode(uprobe_opcode_t op)
> +{
> +       pr_warn_once("uprobes does not currently support probing "
> +               "instructions with the 2-byte opcode 0x0f 0x%2.2x\n", op);
> +} 

I really don't like all that dmesg muck, why not simply fail the op?

This _once stuff is pretty useless too, once you've had them all
subsequent probe attempts will not say anything and leave you in the
dark anyway.



--
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/