On 2024-07-02 02:02, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:39 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
@@ -2443,9 +2443,15 @@ static int __bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *
if (prog->aux->max_tp_access > btp->writable_size)
return -EINVAL;
- return tracepoint_probe_register_prio_flags(tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func,
- prog, TRACEPOINT_DEFAULT_PRIO,
- TRACEPOINT_MAY_EXIST);
+ if (tp->flags & TRACEPOINT_MAY_FAULT) {
+ return tracepoint_probe_register_prio_flags(tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func,
+ prog, TRACEPOINT_DEFAULT_PRIO,
+ TRACEPOINT_MAY_EXIST | TRACEPOINT_MAY_FAULT);
+ } else {
+ return tracepoint_probe_register_prio_flags(tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func,
+ prog, TRACEPOINT_DEFAULT_PRIO,
+ TRACEPOINT_MAY_EXIST);
+ }
nit: you can also just pass the flag directly,
return tracepoint_probe_register_prio_flags(tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func,
prog, TRACEPOINT_DEFAULT_PRIO,
TRACEPOINT_MAY_EXIST | (tp->flags & TRACEPOINT_MAY_FAULT));
I'll do that for both the ftrace and the bpf patches and eliminate this
odd duplication. That's a good idea.
I'll add your Reviewed-by to all the "tracing/*" patches.
Thanks,
Mathieu
But others looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you,
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
