> On Oct 27, 2023, at 6:56 AM, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
We have "loff_t offset;" right above this line. So it is better to
use same type for the two offsets.
Thanks,
Song
