RE: [Fault-injection-developer] RE: [PATCH]Rewrite of fi_core.c u sing sysfs
Status: Alpha
Brought to you by:
rustyl
From: Lynch, R. <rus...@in...> - 2002-12-17 01:34:24
|
> > I agree that the core is the proper location for putting > > common (i.e. 'core') functionality that is exported for > > other code to use. > > > > This doesn't explain why you want execute_trigger inside > > the core. I would argue that each interceptor does not > > want to execute a trigger in exactly the same way. > As you see, execute_trigger handles an intercepted event, > and look up the wp table to decide how to injection fault. It > will be need by all the other interceptor, IO/PCI config etc. > Why not we move it into fi_core.c and share it among all > interceptors. > > -Stan > > > > > Could you further explain your position? > > > When the pf interceptor executes a trigger all it really does is: 1. apply some filter criteria contained in the trigger to decide if anything should be done 2. If something should be done then apply some operations on the data passed to the handler 3. store the manipulated data back where it was read from It seems to me that something more then just mucking up a chunk of data could be implemented by an interceptor. Doesn't this seem like an artificial limitation? Also, wouldn't you want your trigger executed with as little overhead as possible if your interceptor is getting triggered very often (like in a page fault handler.) It seems like it would be a good idea to include the trigger execution inline instead of making yet another function call. -rusty |