[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230612193159.2b3d81ff@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:31:59 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Jackie Liu <liu.yun@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] ftrace: Show all functions with addresses in
available_filter_functions_addrs
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 16:28:49 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> If Steven would be ok with it, can we land this change through the
> bpf-next tree? Then we can have BPF selftest added in the same patch
> set that parses a new file and uses bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi()
> to attach using explicit addresses.
>
> This should make it clear to everyone how this is meant to be used and
> will be a good test that everything works end-to-end.
>
This touches some of the code I'm working with, so I rather have it be in
my tree.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists