[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABRcYmLhVxRwMYWjTE855WMg5fV+O1tLz8HJmy_6G6LK5ZEtVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:57:26 +0200
From: Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] fprobe: Use fprobe_regs in fprobe entry handler
On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 7:37 AM Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
<mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -2467,7 +2467,7 @@ static int __init bpf_event_init(void)
> fs_initcall(bpf_event_init);
> #endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_FPROBE
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
Shouldn't this be #if defined(CONFIG_FPROBE) &&
defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS) ?
I believe one could build a kernel with FTRACE_WITH_REGS and without
FPROBE and then this code would have undefined references to fprobe
functions, wouldn't it ?
And then patch 7 should be "Enable kprobe_multi feature even if
FTRACE_WITH_REGS is disabled"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists