[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240313154716.GB25452@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:47:16 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] uprobes: prepare uprobe args buffer lazily
Again, looks good to me, but I have a minor nit. Feel free to ignore.
On 03/12, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> static void __uprobe_trace_func(struct trace_uprobe *tu,
> unsigned long func, struct pt_regs *regs,
> - struct uprobe_cpu_buffer *ucb,
> + struct uprobe_cpu_buffer **ucbp,
> struct trace_event_file *trace_file)
> {
> struct uprobe_trace_entry_head *entry;
> struct trace_event_buffer fbuffer;
> + struct uprobe_cpu_buffer *ucb;
> void *data;
> int size, esize;
> struct trace_event_call *call = trace_probe_event_call(&tu->tp);
>
> + ucb = *ucbp;
> + if (!ucb) {
> + ucb = prepare_uprobe_buffer(tu, regs);
> + *ucbp = ucb;
> + }
perhaps it would be more clean to pass ucbp to prepare_uprobe_buffer()
and change it to do
if (*ucbp)
return *ucbp;
at the start. Then __uprobe_trace_func() and __uprobe_perf_func() can
simply do
ucb = prepare_uprobe_buffer(tu, regs, ucbp);
> - uprobe_buffer_put(ucb);
> + if (ucb)
> + uprobe_buffer_put(ucb);
Similarly, I think the "ucb != NULL" check should be shifted into
uprobe_buffer_put().
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists