Again, looks good to me, but I have a minor nit. Feel free to ignore.
On 03/12, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> static void __uprobe_trace_func(struct trace_uprobe *tu,
> unsigned long func, struct pt_regs *regs,
> - struct uprobe_cpu_buffer *ucb,
> + struct uprobe_cpu_buffer **ucbp,
> struct trace_event_file *trace_file)
> {
> struct uprobe_trace_entry_head *entry;
> struct trace_event_buffer fbuffer;
> + struct uprobe_cpu_buffer *ucb;
> void *data;
> int size, esize;
> struct trace_event_call *call = trace_probe_event_call(&tu->tp);
>
> + ucb = *ucbp;
> + if (!ucb) {
> + ucb = prepare_uprobe_buffer(tu, regs);
> + *ucbp = ucb;
> + }
perhaps it would be more clean to pass ucbp to prepare_uprobe_buffer()
and change it to do
if (*ucbp)
return *ucbp;
at the start. Then __uprobe_trace_func() and __uprobe_perf_func() can
simply do
ucb = prepare_uprobe_buffer(tu, regs, ucbp);
> - uprobe_buffer_put(ucb);
> + if (ucb)
> + uprobe_buffer_put(ucb);
Similarly, I think the "ucb != NULL" check should be shifted into
uprobe_buffer_put().
Oleg.
