[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130206181044.GA3752@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 19:10:44 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, Frank Eigler <fche@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
"Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] uprobes/perf: pre-filtering
On 02/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Based on git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/oleg/misc uprobes/core,
> on top of "[PATCH 0/5] uprobes: kill uprobe_trace_consumer and other cleanups"
> series.
>
> With this series 'perf record -e uprobe ...' does not install the breakpoints
> into the processes it doesn't want to probe.
>
> Probably this all needs more testing (the last patch for sure) but please
> review. I'll try to do more testing tomorrow.
Well, everything seems to work....
And nobody cares^Wobjects. I am going to add this to "oleg/misc uprobes/core"
and ask Ingo to pull.
> A special note about 1/7. It was actually needed for initial implementation,
> this version doesn't need it. Still I am sending it at least for review, it
> looks "natural" and potentially useful, and I would like to know if it is
> correct or not.
But since 1/7 wasn't reviewed, I'll drop it.
Btw, during the testing I noticed a minor problem (or problems) in tools/perf/,
I'll try to investigate...
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists