On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:19:20 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:15:09 +0200 > Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Fixing the __NR_uretprobe number in uprobe_syscall test, > > because it changed due to merge conflict. > > > > Ah, it is not enough, since Stephen's change is just a temporary fix on > next tree. OK, Let me update it. Hm, I thought I need to change all NR_uretprobe, but it makes NR_syscalls list sparse. This may need to be solved on linus tree in merge window, or I should merge (or rebase on) vfs-brauner tree before sending probes/for-next. Steve, do you have any idea? we talked about conflict on next tree[0]. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613114243.2a50059b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks, > > Thanks, > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > index c8517c8f5313..bd8c75b620c2 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_uretprobe_regs_change(void) > > } > > > > #ifndef __NR_uretprobe > > -#define __NR_uretprobe 463 > > +#define __NR_uretprobe 467 > > #endif > > > > __naked unsigned long uretprobe_syscall_call_1(void) > > -- > > 2.45.1 > > > > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
