[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529E8903.7060907@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:44:35 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
CC: acme@...stprotocols.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, namhyung@...nel.org,
"yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf probe: Allow user to specify address within
executable
On 12/3/13, 6:22 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> I figured out what you meant by uprobe_events interface yesterday. If I
>> have to go to that interface for even 1 function I would do it for all
>> -- from a user perspective it is just simpler to have 1 command to setup
>> probes. I would prefer that 1 command be perf-probe.
>
> Yeah, but in that case, why you don't ask us adding sym->binding == STB_LOCAL
> in filter_available_functions? :)
I did in a separate email -- you said because there can be multiple
local functions with the same name. But local functions is not the only
use case I need.
For now I will carry the patch locally. At this point I am 20 patches
deep and have probably another 20 to go. What's one more. I'll come back
to this when I have more time.
Thanks,
David
--
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