From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA07C04AAB for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 19:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020D220449 for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 19:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727015AbfEGT6W (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 15:58:22 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:54498 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726658AbfEGT6W (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 15:58:22 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96C41208C4; Tue, 7 May 2019 19:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 15:58:17 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Nicolai Stange , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Jiri Kosina , Miroslav Benes , Petr Mladek , Joe Lawrence , Shuah Khan , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Tim Chen , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Mimi Zohar , Juergen Gross , Nick Desaulniers , Nayna Jain , Masahiro Yamada , Joerg Roedel , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , stable , Masami Hiramatsu Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions Message-ID: <20190507155817.2d08d0eb@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20190507194925.qndvv67rinrmbefj@treble> References: <20190507174227.673261270@goodmis.org> <20190507174400.219947724@goodmis.org> <20190507175342.fskdj2qidpao65qi@treble> <20190507150153.7a5d376d@gandalf.local.home> <20190507191412.n4uhoyfwagagyfwi@treble> <20190507152016.77f7a3af@gandalf.local.home> <20190507194925.qndvv67rinrmbefj@treble> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:49:25 -0500 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > New version: > > > > x86_64: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions > > > > In order to allow breakpoints to emulate call functions, they need to push > > Sorry to keep nitpicking, but "call functions" -> "function calls" would > sound more accurate to me (in both subject and description). I disagree ;-) Matters how you look at it. I look at it as emulating the "call" function, not a function call. Like emulating an "addl" function, or a "jmp" function. See? To remove the ambiguity, I could replace "function" with "instruction". > > Otherwise it looks good. Thanks! -- Steve From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rostedt at goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 15:58:17 -0400 Subject: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions In-Reply-To: <20190507194925.qndvv67rinrmbefj@treble> References: <20190507174227.673261270@goodmis.org> <20190507174400.219947724@goodmis.org> <20190507175342.fskdj2qidpao65qi@treble> <20190507150153.7a5d376d@gandalf.local.home> <20190507191412.n4uhoyfwagagyfwi@treble> <20190507152016.77f7a3af@gandalf.local.home> <20190507194925.qndvv67rinrmbefj@treble> Message-ID: <20190507155817.2d08d0eb@gandalf.local.home> On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:49:25 -0500 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > New version: > > > > x86_64: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions > > > > In order to allow breakpoints to emulate call functions, they need to push > > Sorry to keep nitpicking, but "call functions" -> "function calls" would > sound more accurate to me (in both subject and description). I disagree ;-) Matters how you look at it. I look at it as emulating the "call" function, not a function call. Like emulating an "addl" function, or a "jmp" function. See? To remove the ambiguity, I could replace "function" with "instruction". > > Otherwise it looks good. Thanks! -- Steve From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 15:58:17 -0400 Subject: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions In-Reply-To: <20190507194925.qndvv67rinrmbefj@treble> References: <20190507174227.673261270@goodmis.org> <20190507174400.219947724@goodmis.org> <20190507175342.fskdj2qidpao65qi@treble> <20190507150153.7a5d376d@gandalf.local.home> <20190507191412.n4uhoyfwagagyfwi@treble> <20190507152016.77f7a3af@gandalf.local.home> <20190507194925.qndvv67rinrmbefj@treble> Message-ID: <20190507155817.2d08d0eb@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190507195817.vtOfXkOCOIWkjKMJSsPSJV8TOIszqI5VogDnSR2SDog@z> On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:49:25 -0500 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > New version: > > > > x86_64: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions > > > > In order to allow breakpoints to emulate call functions, they need to push > > Sorry to keep nitpicking, but "call functions" -> "function calls" would > sound more accurate to me (in both subject and description). I disagree ;-) Matters how you look at it. I look at it as emulating the "call" function, not a function call. Like emulating an "addl" function, or a "jmp" function. See? To remove the ambiguity, I could replace "function" with "instruction". > > Otherwise it looks good. Thanks! -- Steve