[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200229134947.839096dbc8321cfdca980edb@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 13:49:47 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 03/13] kprobes: Add symbols for kprobe insn pages
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:20:04 +0100
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> > BTW, it seems to pretend to be a module, but is there no concern of
> > confusing users? Shouldn't it be [*kprobes] so that it is non-exist
> > module name?
>
> note we already have bpf symbols as [bpf] module
Yeah, and this series adds [kprobe(s)] and [ftrace] too.
I simply concern that the those module names implicitly become
special word (rule) and embedded in the code. If such module names
are not exposed to users, it is OK (but I hope to have some comments).
However, it is under /proc, which means users can notice it.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists