[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171012214945.1fbcba2f@vmware.local.home>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:49:45 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: bpf: Hide bpf trace events when they are not
used
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:38:36 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> actually just noticed that xdp tracepoints are not covered by ifdef.
> They depend on bpf_syscall too. So probably makes sense to wrap
> them together.
> bpf tracepoints are not being actively worked on whereas xdp tracepoints
> keep evolving quickly, so the best is probalby to go via net-next
> if you don't mind.
Hmm, they didn't trigger a warning, with the exception of
trace_xdp_redirect_map. I have code to check if tracepoints are used or
not, and it appears that the xdp can be used without BPF_SYSCALL.
I don't think they should be wrapped together until we know why they
are used. I can still take this patch and just not touch the xdp ones.
Note, my kernel was using trace_xdp_redirect_map_err,
trace_xdp_redirect_err, trace_xdp_redirect and trace_xdp_exception.
As they did appear.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists