On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 16:08 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:44 PM Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1291,6 +1294,7 @@ struct bpf_cg_run_ctx {
> > struct bpf_trace_run_ctx {
> > struct bpf_run_ctx run_ctx;
> > u64 bpf_cookie;
> > + struct bpf_run_ctx *saved_run_ctx;
> > };
>
> oh, and bpf_trace_run_ctx is used for kprobe/uprobe/tracepoint, let's
> add a new struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx which would reflect that it is
> used
> for BPF trampoline-based BPF programs. Otherwise it's confusing to
> have saved_run_ctx for kprobe where we don't use that. Similarly, if
> we move "start" timestamp, it will be a bit off. Not end of the
> world,
> but I think keeping them separate would make sense over long run.
Ok!
