[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210626193540.706da950@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:35:40 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint: Do not warn on EEXIST or ENOENT
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 14:42:49 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> > If BPF is OK with registering the same probe more than once if user
> > space expects it, we can add this patch, which allows the caller (in
> > this case BPF) to not warn if the probe being registered is already
> > registered, and keeps the idea that a probe registered twice is a bug
> > for all other use cases.
>
> How can removal of the duplicates be non buggy then ? The first removal will match both probes.
The registering of the first duplicate would fail with an error, but
will not warn. There would be no unregistering needed.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists