[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YukuOj4CR3HgUv1S@sparkplug.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:01:30 +0200
From: Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vacek <dvacek@...hat.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: export crash_kexec() as destructive
kfunc
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 12:46:42PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:10:29AM +0200, Artem Savkov wrote:
> > +static int __init crash_kfunc_init(void)
> > +{
> > + register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &kexec_kfunc_set);
> > + return 0;
>
> should we do 'return register_btf_kfunc_id_set(...' in here?
Maybe, but as far as I can tell the return value for init calls does
absolutely nothing except for showing up in a debug message. So I don't
think it will be worth a respin, but if there is one anyway I'll change
this.
--
Artem
Powered by blists - more mailing lists