On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 22:58, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > Another thought; I'm using the fentry nop as patch point, so it wont > > play nice with other users of fentry atm -- but the plan is to move to > > Steve's *_ftrace_direct work at some point, correct? > > Yes. I'll start playing with reg/mod/unreg_ftrace_direct on Monday. > Steven has a bunch more in his tree for merging, so I cannot just pull > all of ftrace api features into bpf-next. So "be nice to other fentry users" > would have to be done during merge window or shortly after in bpf-next tree > after window closes. I think it's fine. Yup, I agree. > In bpf dispatch case it's really > one dummy function we're talking about. If it was marked 'notrace' > from get go no one would blink. It's a dummy function not interesting > for ftrac-ing and not interesting from live patching pov. > ...but marking it with 'notrace' would remove the __fentry__ nop. Anyways, the "be nice" approach is OK.
