[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240605210043.GB19139@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:00:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 01/10] uprobe: Add session callbacks to
uprobe_consumer
On 06/05, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > And the comment about the return value looks confusing too. I mean, the
> > logic doesn't differ from the ret-code from ->handler().
> >
> > "DO NOT install/execute the return uprobe" is not true if another
> > non-session-consumer returns 0.
>
> well they are meant to be exclusive, so there'd be no other non-session-consumer
OK. (but may be the changelog can explain more clearly why they can't
co-exist with the non-session-consumers).
But again, this doesn't differ from the the ret-code from the
non-session-consumer->handler().
If it returns 1 == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE, then without other consumers
prepare_uretprobe() won't be called.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists