Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] bpf: Store ref_ctr_offsets values in bpf_uprobe array

[Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 09:31:00AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 1:24 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We will need to return ref_ctr_offsets values through link_info
> > interface in following change, so we need to keep them around.
> >
> > Storing ref_ctr_offsets values directly into bpf_uprobe array.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Acked-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> with one nitpick below.
> 
> > ---
> >  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 14 +++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index df697c74d519..843b3846d3f8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -3031,6 +3031,7 @@ struct bpf_uprobe_multi_link;
> >  struct bpf_uprobe {
> >         struct bpf_uprobe_multi_link *link;
> >         loff_t offset;
> > +       unsigned long ref_ctr_offset;
> 
> nit: s/unsigned long/loff_t/ ?

hum, the single uprobe interface also keeps it as 'unsigned long'
in 'struct trace_uprobe' .. while uprobe code keeps both offset and
ref_ctr_offset values as loff_t

is there any benefit by changing that to loff_t?

jirka

> 
> >         u64 cookie;
> >         struct uprobe_consumer consumer;
> >  };