On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:31 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:12:43 -0800
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > > > FWIW, I intend to do some consolidation/renaming in this area. I
> > > > > > trust that will not be a problem?
> > > > >
> > > > > If it does not break anything, it will be not a problem ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > It's possible that __add_to_page_cache_locked() can be a global symbol
> > > > > with add_to_page_cache_lru() + add_to_page_cache_locked() being just
> > > > > static/inline wrappers around it.
> > > >
> > > > So what happens to BTF if we change this area entirely? Your IDs
> > > > sound like some kind of ABI to me, which is extremely scary.
> > >
> > > Is BTF becoming the new tracepoint? That is, random additions of things like:
> > >
> > > BTF_ID(func,__add_to_page_cache_locked)
> > >
> > > Like was done in commit 1e6c62a882155 ("bpf: Introduce sleepable BPF
> > > programs") without any notification to the maintainers of the
> > > __add_to_page_cache_locked code, will suddenly become an API?
> >
> > huh? what api/abi you're talking about?
>
> If the function __add_to_page_cache_locked were to be removed due to
> the code being rewritten, would it break any user space? If not, then
> there's nothing to worry about. ;-)
That function is marked with ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION.
So any script that exercises it via debugfs (or via bpf) will not work.
That's nothing new. Same "breakage" happens with kprobes, etc.
The function was marked with error_inject for a reason though.
The refactoring or renaming of this code ideally should provide a way to do
similar pattern of injecting errors in this code path.
It could be a completely new function, of course.
