ts in tracefs created with them.
Qais Yousef (2):
trace: bpf: Allow bpf to attach to bare tracepoints
selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst | 6 +
include/trace/bpf_probe.h | 12 +++--
.../bpf/bpf_te
Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst to document this contract.
Acked-by: Yonghong Song
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
---
Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst | 6 ++
include/trace/bpf_probe.h | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a
Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
---
.../bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h | 6 +
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 21 ++-
.../selftests/bpf
< 0, "testmod_file_open", "failed: %d\n", err))
> return err;
>
> My above rewrite intends to use "err" during final "return" statement,
> so I put assignment of "err = -errno" inside the CHECK branch.
> But there are different ways to implement this properly.
Okay I see now. Sorry I missed your point initially. I will fix and send v3.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
On 01/16/21 18:11, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/21 10:21 AM, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
> > we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
> > --
tracepoints are declare
with TRACE_EVENT().
BPF can attach to these tracepoints as RAW_TRACEPOINT() only as there're no
events in tracefs created with them.
Qais Yousef (2):
trace: bpf: Allow bpf to attach to bare tracepoints
selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
Documentatio
Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst to document this contract.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
---
Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst | 6 ++
include/trace/bpf_probe.h | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
b
Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
---
.../bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h | 6 +
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 21 ++-
.../selftests/bpf
On 01/13/21 17:40, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:21:31AM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 01/12/21 12:07, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > > > $ sudo ./test_progs -v -t module_attach
> > > > >
> > > > > u
have all necessary FTRACE options enabled,
including DYNAMIC_FTRACE. I think I did try enabling fault injection too just
in case. I have CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION=y and CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION=y.
I will look at the CI config and see if I can figure it out.
I will likely get a chance to look at all of this and send v2 over the
weekend.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
o you know what is the possible reason?
Yeah I did a last minute fix to address a checkpatch.pl error and my
verification of the change wasn't good enough obviously.
If you're keen to try out I can send you a patch with the fix. I should send v2
by the weekend too.
Thanks for having a look.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
On 01/11/21 23:26, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:20 AM Qais Yousef wrote:
> >
> > Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
> > we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
>
Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
---
Andrii
I was getting the error below when I was trying to run the test.
I had to comment out all related fentry* code to be able to test the raw_tp
x27;s no
events in tracefs created with them.
Qais Yousef (2):
trace: bpf: Allow bpf to attach to bare tracepoints
selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst | 6 ++
include/trace/bpf_probe.h
Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst to document this contract.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
---
Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst | 6 ++
include/trace/bpf_probe.h | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
b
using two distinct
> type hierarchies in BTF data. It also breaks build with options:
> CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y
> CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_BCM_SPU=y
>
> as reported by Qais Yousef [1].
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201229151352.6hzmjvu3qh6p2qgg@e107158-lin/
> Si
On 12/30/20 14:28, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:03:37AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:28:35PM +, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > Hi Jiri
> > > >
Hi Jiri
On 12/29/20 18:34, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 03:13:52PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > When I enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF I get the following error in the BTFIDS
> > stage
> >
> > FAILED unresolved symbol udp6_sock
On 06/19/20 20:16, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17 June 2020 12:18:06 AM IST, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >Hi Manivannan, David
> >
> >On 02/13/20 14:44, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> + trace_printk("advertis
OTICE NOTICE NOTICE **
[0.00] **
Shouldn't this be replaced with one of pr_*() variants instead?
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
20 matches
Mail list logo
