[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <761ce9e6-aea4-01d8-8ff0-a17ad8a92526@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:35:56 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, tracing: unbreak lttng
On 3/26/18 3:30 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Mar 26, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Alexei Starovoitov ast@...nel.org wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
>> -void *
>> -for_each_kernel_tracepoint(void *(*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
>> +void
>> +for_each_kernel_tracepoint(void (*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
>> void *priv);
>> +struct tracepoint *kernel_tracepoint_find_by_name(const char *name);
>> #else
>> -static inline void *
>> -for_each_kernel_tracepoint(void *(*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
>> +static inline void
>> +for_each_kernel_tracepoint(void (*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
>> void *priv)
>> {
>> return NULL;
>> }
>
> This patch is not reverting to the old code properly. It introduces a
> static inline void function that returns NULL. Please compile-test
> with CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS=n before submitting a patch involving tracepoints.
right. good catch. v2 is coming.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists