[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240807131707.GB27715@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 15:17:07 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] perf/uprobe: split uprobe_unregister()
I guess you know this, but just in case...
On 07/31, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> @@ -478,7 +478,8 @@ static void testmod_unregister_uprobe(void)
> mutex_lock(&testmod_uprobe_mutex);
>
> if (uprobe.uprobe) {
> - uprobe_unregister(uprobe.uprobe, &uprobe.consumer);
> + uprobe_unregister_nosync(uprobe.uprobe, &uprobe.consumer);
> + uprobe_unregister_sync();
> uprobe.offset = 0;
> uprobe.uprobe = NULL;
this chunk has the trivial conlicts with tip perf/core
db61e6a4eee5a selftests/bpf: fix uprobe.path leak in bpf_testmod
adds path_put(&uprobe.path) here
3c83a9ad0295e make uprobe_register() return struct uprobe *
removes the "uprobe.offset = 0;" line.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists