On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 8:48 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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);
ok, will do
>
> > - uprobe_buffer_put(ucb);
> > + if (ucb)
> > + uprobe_buffer_put(ucb);
>
> Similarly, I think the "ucb != NULL" check should be shifted into
> uprobe_buffer_put().
sure, will hide it inside uprobe_buffer_put()
>
> Oleg.
>
