On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:12 PM Howard Chu <howardchu95@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Ian,
>
> Thanks for doing this.
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:15 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
> > @@ -2104,11 +2123,12 @@ static int trace__read_syscall_info(struct trace *trace, int id)
> > */
> > if (IS_ERR(sc->tp_format)) {
> > sc->nonexistent = true;
> > - return PTR_ERR(sc->tp_format);
> > + err = PTR_ERR(sc->tp_format);
> > + sc->tp_format = NULL;
> > + return err;
> > }
> >
> > - if (syscall__alloc_arg_fmts(sc, IS_ERR(sc->tp_format) ?
> > - RAW_SYSCALL_ARGS_NUM : sc->tp_format->format.nr_fields))
> > + if (syscall__alloc_arg_fmts(sc, sc->tp_format->format.nr_fields))
>
> Makes sense because IS_ERR(sc->tp_format) is checked a few lines
> above. However, nr_fields can be 7 with the __syscall_nr prefix. I
> sent a patch to fix this, but it's not included here... Never mind,
> it's off-topic. This patch looks good.
:-) So is this a reviewed-by? What about the other patches?
Thanks,
Ian
