[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190618171115.2c58fde6@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:11:15 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/21] tracing/probe: Split trace_event related data
from trace_probe
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:23:22 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > Oops, good catch!
> > This part is related to caller (ftrace/perf) so should be more careful.
> > Usually, kprobe enablement should not fail. If one of them has
> > gone (like a probe on unloaded module), it can be fail but that
> > should be ignored. I would like to add some additional check so that
> > - If all kprobes are on the module which is unloaded, enablement
> > must be failed and return error.
> > - If any kprobe is enabled, and others are on non-exist modules,
> > it should succeeded and return OK.
> > - If any kprobe caused an error not because of unloaded module,
> > all other enablement should be canceled and return error.
> >
> > Is that OK for you?
> >
>
> Sounds good to me.
BTW,
I pulled in patches 1-9 and I'm starting to test them now.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists