[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj=JCe-4exEH=kJmhf4FfRmbhSqHxMiKiuhL5NWho_4hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 08:16:48 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] BPF changes for 6.18
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 at 03:58, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
>
> yes, either way will work fine, but perhaps the other way round to
> first optimize and then skip uprobe if needed is less confusing
Yes, thanks, that was how I felt looking at that resolution too.
> I ended up with changes below, should I send formal patches?
Please.
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
> @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ static void subtest_basic_usdt(bool optimized)
> goto cleanup;
> #endif
>
> - alled = TRIGGER(1);
> + called = TRIGGER(1);
Oops. That's me having fat-fingered things. Sorry.
I would have seen that silly mistake had I gotten the tests to build,
but as mentioned, there were multiple small issues that had unhelpful
error messages that I had given up.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists