On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:57:26 +0200 Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 7:37 AM Masami Hiramatsu (Google) > <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > > @@ -2467,7 +2467,7 @@ static int __init bpf_event_init(void) > > fs_initcall(bpf_event_init); > > #endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */ > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_FPROBE > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS > > Shouldn't this be #if defined(CONFIG_FPROBE) && > defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS) ? Oops, that's right! > > I believe one could build a kernel with FTRACE_WITH_REGS and without > FPROBE and then this code would have undefined references to fprobe > functions, wouldn't it ? Yeah, ftrace with regs doesn't mean fprobe is enabled. > > And then patch 7 should be "Enable kprobe_multi feature even if > FTRACE_WITH_REGS is disabled" OK. Thank you! -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
