On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:46:14PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> SEC("raw_tp/bpf_sidecar_test_read")
> -int BPF_PROG(test_core_module,
> +int BPF_PROG(test_core_module_probed,
> struct task_struct *task,
> struct bpf_sidecar_test_read_ctx *read_ctx)
> {
> @@ -64,3 +64,33 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_core_module,
>
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +SEC("tp_btf/bpf_sidecar_test_read")
> +int BPF_PROG(test_core_module_direct,
> + struct task_struct *task,
> + struct bpf_sidecar_test_read_ctx *read_ctx)
"sidecar" is such an overused name.
I didn't like it earlier, but seeing that it here again and again I couldn't help it.
Could you please pick a different name for kernel module?
It's just a kernel module for testing. Just call it so. No need for fancy name.
